RESUMEN
SIGNIFICANCE: A growing number of adults use more than one tobacco product, with dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes being the most common combination. Monitoring sex disparities in tobacco use is a public health priority. However, little is known regarding whether dual users differ by sex. METHODS: Data came from Waves 4-6 (12/2016-11/2021) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a US nationally-representative longitudinal survey. This analysis included current adult dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes. We used weighted generalized estimating equations to assess the association between sex and (1) making a cigarette quit attempt (n = 1882 observations from n = 1526 individuals) and (2) smoking cessation (n = 2081 observations from n = 1688 individuals) across two wave pairs, adjusting for age, education, ethnicity, time-to-first cigarette after waking, and e-cigarette use frequency. RESULTS: Among US dual users, 14.1% (95% Confidence Intervals [Cl] = 11.9-16.4) of females and 23.4% (20.0-26.9) of males were young adults (aged 18-24), 11.7% (9.2-14.2) of females and 14.4% (11.6-17.2) of males had Asunto(s)
Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina
, Cese del Hábito de Fumar
, Humanos
, Masculino
, Femenino
, Cese del Hábito de Fumar/estadística & datos numéricos
, Estudios Longitudinales
, Adulto
, Estados Unidos/epidemiología
, Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina/estadística & datos numéricos
, Persona de Mediana Edad
, Factores Sexuales
, Uso de Tabaco/epidemiología
, Adolescente
, Adulto Joven
, Productos de Tabaco/estadística & datos numéricos
, Fumar Cigarrillos/epidemiología
, Vapeo/epidemiología
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation may differ by source of purchase. The changing influence of self-selection on purchase location caused by COVID-19 pandemic-related vape shop closures means we can examine the association between smoking abstinence e-cigarette use by purchase source and test for moderation of this association by the timing of the pandemic. METHODS: Repeat-cross-sectional nationally representative surveys, conducted between January-2017 and August-2023. Participants (N=1,284; ≥18y, 46.9% women) who made a past-year quit attempt, used an e-cigarette in their most recent attempt, currently vaping and provided data on the purchase source were included. The association between e-cigarette purchase source and continuous abstinence following the most recent quit attempt was assessed with adjusted regression, including an interaction between the timing of pandemic restrictions (March-2020 through January-2022). RESULTS: Overall, 48.1% usually purchasing their e-cigarettes from vape shops, declining from 53.6% pre-pandemic to 40.6% during the pandemic. There was inconclusive evidence that those purchasing from vape shops had greater odds of quitting smoking (ORadj=1.25, 95%CI 0.92-1.76). The association between purchase source and successful quitting did not depend upon whether purchasing occurred before or during the pandemic (F=0.08, pinteraction=0.774; pre-pandemic: ORadj=1.23, 0.79-1.91; and pandemic: ORadj=1.29, 0.81-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: More data are needed to conclusively determine whether purchasing from a specialist vape shop increases smoking cessation. Given the changing influence of self-selection on purchase location caused by the pandemic, the similar associations between purchase source and quit success across both periods suggests it is unlikely an artefact of unmeasured confounding. IMPLICATIONS: It is important to know if where e-cigarettes are purchased can increase their effectiveness for smoking cessation. While we found a positive association between purchasing from a specialist vape shop and abstinence rates, the results were inconclusive. Further studies are required to establish whether purchasing from specialist vape shops improves smoking cessation outcomes compared with other purchase sources.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed public support for four proposed tobacco control policies in Great Britain: (1) Raising the sales age of tobacco by 1 year every year (Smokefree Generation); (2) Raising the sales age of tobacco from 18 years to 21 years; (3) Providing prescription e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids to adults who smoke; (4) Restricting e-cigarette advertising to prevent youth uptake. DESIGN: Repeat cross-sectional population-based survey weighted to match the population of Great Britain. SETTING: The survey was conducted in England, Scotland and Wales in September 2021, October 2022 and October 2023. PARTICIPANTS: 6541 adults living in Great Britain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Support for each policy and year and prevalence ratios (PRs) comparing support between years and subgroups. RESULTS: The most popular policy each year was restricting e-cigarette advertising (74%/79%/85%), followed by raising the sales age to 21 years (50%/58%/64%), providing prescription e-cigarettes (45%/44%/47%) and Smokefree Generation (34%/44%/49%). The largest increases were for policies about the age of sale (Smokefree Generation: 2021/2022 PR=1.28, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.40, 2022/2023 PR=1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20; raising the age to 21 years: 2021/2022 PR=1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.23, 2022/2023 PR=1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.17). Only 30% opposed Smokefree Generation in 2023 down from 41% in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Support for each policy increased each year, except for providing prescription e-cigarettes. Restricting e-cigarette advertising was the most popular policy, while support for age of sale policies, in particular for a Smokefree Generation, grew most. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was published on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/46z2c/) prior to starting the analysis.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the UK in May 2016, standardised packaging of tobacco products was implemented, including minimum pack sizes of 20 sticks or 30 g loose tobacco. The change was intended to reduce uptake by increasing upfront costs to young people, but there was concern it may unintentionally increase consumption among people smoking. This study aimed to assess whether the introduction of the policy was associated with changes in (1) mean daily factory-made (FM)/roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes consumption among people smoking predominantly (a) FM and (b) RYO cigarettes; and (2) current smoking prevalence among 16-24-year-olds. METHODS: Data (N=257 929) were from a representative monthly cross-sectional survey of adults (≥16 years) in England, collected between November 2007 and January 2020. Outcome measures were mean daily (FM/RYO) cigarette consumption among those smoking FM/RYO cigarettes, and prevalence of current smoking among 16-24-year-olds. Time-series analyses were conducted using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average with Exogenous variables (ARIMAX) regression models including a gradual level change starting in June 2017 and ending in May 2018 for cigarette consumption and a step change in June 2016 for prevalence of current smoking. RESULTS: The ARIMAX model was not able to detect a change in mean daily cigarette consumption-for FM (Badj=-0.543, 95% CI -1.381 to 0.296) or RYO (Badj=0.002, 95% CI -0.518 to 0.522) following the implementation of standardised packaging. The unadjusted analysis suggested the implementation of standardised packaging was associated with a small (3%) decrease in smoking prevalence among 16-24-year-olds (Bunadj=-0.031, 95% CI -0.062 to 0.000), but this association was attenuated after adjustment for covariates (Badj=-0.010, 95% CI -0.039 to 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of standardised packaging of tobacco products was not associated with a meaningful change in the mean number of FM or RYO cigarettes consumed by people smoking in England, suggesting the larger pack size has not had an unintended consequence of substantially increasing cigarette consumption. However, there was also little evidence that the policy substantially reduced smoking among 16-24-year-olds.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. METHODS: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. RESULTS: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4-35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5-25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9-4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Cese del Hábito de Fumar , Adulto , Humanos , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Intervención en la Crisis (Psiquiatría) , Estudios Transversales , Pandemias/prevención & control , COVID-19/epidemiología , Fumar/epidemiología , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Productos de TabacoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Rates of diseases and death from tobacco smoking are substantially higher among those with a mental health condition (MHC). Vaping can help some people quit smoking, but little is known about vaping among people with MHCs or psychological distress. We assessed the prevalence and characteristics (heaviness, product type) of smoking and/or vaping among those with and without a history of single or multiple MHC diagnoses and with no, moderate or serious psychological distress. METHODS: Data from 27,437 adults in Great Britain surveyed between 2020 and 2022. Multinomial regressions analysed associations between smoking, vaping and dual use prevalence, smoking/vaping characteristics and (a) history of a single or multiple MHC and (b) moderate or serious psychological distress, adjusted for age, gender, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Compared with people who had never smoked, those who currently smoked were more likely to report a history of a single (12.5% vs 15.0%, AOR=1.62, 95% CI=1.46-1.81, p<.001) or multiple MHCs (12.8% vs 29.3%, AOR=2.51, 95% CI=2.28-2.75, p<.001). Compared with non-vapers, current vapers were more likely to report a history of a single (13.5% vs 15.5%, AOR=1.28, 95% CI=1.11-1.48, p<.001) or multiple MHCs (15.5% vs 33.4%, AOR=1.66, 95% CI=1.47-1.87, p<.001). Dual users were more likely to report a history of multiple MHCs (36.8%), but not a single MHC than exclusive smokers (27.2%) and exclusive vapers (30.4%) (all p<.05). Similar associations were reported for those with moderate or serious psychological distress. Smoking roll-your-own cigarettes and smoking more heavily, were associated with a history of single or multiple MHCs. There were no associations between vaping characteristics and a history of MHCs. Frequency of vaping, device type and nicotine concentration differed by psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, vaping and dual use were substantially higher among those with a history of MHC, especially multiple MHC, and experiencing past month distress than those not having a history of MHC or experiencing past month distress respectively. Analysis used descriptive epidemiology and causation cannot be determined.
Asunto(s)
Vapeo , Adulto , Humanos , Vapeo/epidemiología , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Salud Mental , Prevalencia , Fumar/efectos adversos , Fumar/epidemiología , Fumar TabacoRESUMEN
Contingency management is one of the most effective treatments for substance use disorders in not-pregnant people. The most recent quantitative review of its efficacy among pregnant and postpartum women who smoke cigarettes concluded with moderate certainty that those receiving contingent financial incentives were twice as likely to be abstinent compared with controls. We aimed to update and extend previous reviews. Five databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before December 2022 that assessed the effectiveness of incentives for abstinence from substance use. Data from trials of smoking abstinence were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model (restricted maximum likelihood). Results are reported as risk-ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022372291. Twelve RCTs (3136) pregnant women) were included. There was high certainty evidence that women receiving incentives were more likely to be abstinent than controls at the last antepartum assessment (12 RCTs; RR = 2.43, 95% CI 2.04-2.91, n = 2941, I2 = 0.0%) and moderate certainty evidence at the longest postpartum assessment while incentives were still available (five RCTs; RR = 2.72, 1.47-5.02, n = 659, I2 = 44.5%), and at the longest postpartum follow-up after incentives were discontinued (six RCTs; RR = 1.93, 1.08-3.46, n = 1753, I2 = 51.8%). Pregnant women receiving incentives are twice as likely to achieve smoking abstinence during pregnancy suggesting this intervention should be standard care for pregnant women who smoke. The results also demonstrate that abstinence continues into the postpartum period, including after incentives are discontinued, but more trials measuring outcomes in the postpartum period are needed to strengthen this conclusion.
Asunto(s)
Fumar Cigarrillos , Cese del Hábito de Fumar , Femenino , Embarazo , Humanos , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Terapia Conductista , Mujeres Embarazadas , Periodo PospartoRESUMEN
AIM: To examine whether, in adults receiving behavioral support, offering e-cigarettes together with varenicline helps more people stop smoking cigarettes than varenicline alone. METHODS: A two-group, parallel arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted in six English stop smoking services from 2019-2020. Adults enrolled onto a 12-week programme of in-person one-to-one behavioral smoking cessation support (N â =â 92) were randomized to receive either (1) a nicotine e-cigarette starter kit alongside varenicline or (2) varenicline alone. The primary outcome was biochemically verified abstinence from cigarette smoking between weeks 9-to-12 post quit date, with those lost to follow-up considered not abstinent. The trial was stopped early due to COVID-19 restrictions and a varenicline recall (92/1266 participants used). RESULTS: Nine-to-12-week smoking abstinence rates were 47.9% (23/48) in the e-cigarette-varenicline group compared with 31.8% (14/44) in the varenicline-only group, a 51% increase in abstinence among those offered e-cigarettes; however, the confidence interval (CI) was wide, including the possibility of no difference (risk ratio [RR]â =â 1.51, 95% CIâ =â 0.91-2.64). The e-cigarette-varenicline group had 43% lower hazards of relapse from continuous abstinence than the varenicline-only group (hazards ratio [HR]â =â 0.57, 95% CIâ =â 0.34-0.96). Attendance for 12 weeks was higher in the e-cigarette-varenicline than varenicline-only group (54.2% vs. 36.4%; RRâ =â 1.49, 95% CIâ =â 0.95-2.47), but similar proportions of participants in both groups used varenicline daily for ≥8 weeks after quitting (22.9% versus 22.7%; RRâ =â 1.01, 95% CIâ =â 0.47-2.20). Estimates were too imprecise to determine how adverse events differed by group. CONCLUSION: Tentative evidence suggests that offering e-cigarettes alongside varenicline to people receiving behavioral support may be more effective for smoking cessation than varenicline alone. IMPLICATIONS: Offering e-cigarettes to people quitting smoking with varenicline may help them remain abstinent from cigarettes, but the evidence is tentative because our sample size was smaller than planned-caused by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions and a manufacturing recall. This meant our effect estimates were imprecise, and additional evidence is needed to confirm that providing e-cigarettes and varenicline together helps more people remain abstinent than varenicline alone.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina , Adulto , Humanos , Vareniclina/uso terapéutico , Agonistas Nicotínicos/uso terapéutico , Bupropión , FumarRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: In May 2020, the EU Tobacco Products Directive ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes was implemented in England. This study examined the prevalence of menthol cigarette smoking after the ban, according to sociodemographic and smoking characteristics. METHODS: Cross-sectional data came from a representative survey of current smokers (18+) in England (unweighted n=2681) between July 2020 and June 2021. The weighted prevalence of menthol cigarette smoking as a proportion of total cigarette smoking was calculated, log-binomial regression explored trends over time, and χ2 statistics assessed the relationship between menthol smoking, sociodemographic and smoking characteristics. Sources of purchase of menthol cigarettes were explored. RESULTS: Between July 2020 and June 2021, 15.7% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.1) of smokers reported smoking menthol cigarettes. The fitted non-linear trend supported no initial change followed by a possible reduction across April-June 2021 and fit the data better than linear and null (no change) models (χ2(2)=2519.7, p=0.06; χ2(3)=2519.7, p=0.006). Menthol cigarette smoking was more common among younger groups (16-24=25.2%; 25-34=19.9%) and women (19.4%). Menthol cigarette smokers showed lower cigarette dependence compared with other smokers. Past-6-month purchases of menthol cigarettes from any illicit or cross-border source declined from 30.1% in the last 6 months of 2020 to 17.5% in the first 6 months of 2021. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial minority of current smokers in England reported menthol cigarette smoking between July 2020 and June 2021, despite the ban, possibly reflecting mitigation of restrictions by a variety of licit means, such as legal menthol accessories. The reduction in menthol smoking across April-June 2021 warrants further monitoring.
Asunto(s)
Fumar Cigarrillos , Productos de Tabaco , Humanos , Femenino , Fumadores , Mentol , Estudios Transversales , Fumar Cigarrillos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Smoking among those who live with children is an important influence on smoking initiation among children. This study assessed socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and quitting-related outcomes among all adults with and without children in the household. AIMS AND METHODS: Monthly repeat cross-sectional household survey of adults (16+) from 2013-2019 in England (N = 138 583). We assessed the association between cigarette smoking and quitting-related outcomes and having children in the household, and whether these relationships were moderated by occupational social grade (categories AB-E from most to least advantaged). Trends in smoking prevalence among adults with and without children in the household were explored. RESULTS: In adjusted analysis, the association of having children in the household with smoking prevalence depended on social grade: smoking prevalence was between 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.77) and 0.93 (0.88-0.98) times lower among social grades AB-D with children in the household relative to those without. Conversely, it was 1.11 (1.05-1.16) times higher among social grade E. Yearly prevalence declined similarly among those with and without children (both prevalence ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.97-0.99). Motivation to stop smoking was higher among those with children than those without, but lower among disadvantaged than more advantaged groups. Social grades D-E had greater heavy smoking, but higher prevalence of past-month quit attempts. CONCLUSIONS: Among the most disadvantaged social grade in England, smoking prevalence was higher in those with children in the household than without. To attenuate future smoking-related inequalities, there is an urgent need to target support and address barriers to quitting and promote longer-term quit success. IMPLICATIONS: In the most disadvantaged occupational social grade, having children in the household was associated with higher smoking prevalence compared with not having children. This contrasts with all other social grades in which there was lower comparative smoking prevalence among those with than without children in the household. Without attention this disparity could exacerbate existing and future health inequalities related to smoking.
Asunto(s)
Fumar Cigarrillos , Cese del Hábito de Fumar , Adulto , Niño , Estudios Transversales , Composición Familiar , Humanos , PrevalenciaRESUMEN
AIM: To examine the level of support for tobacco availability policies across Great Britain (GB) and associations between support for policy and sociodemographic, smoking and quitting characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional representative survey (the Smoking Toolkit Study) of adults in GB (n=2197) during September 2021. Logistic regressions estimated the associations between support for each policy and sociodemographic and smoking characteristics. FINDINGS: There was majority support for requiring retailers to have a license which can be removed if they sell to those under-age (89.6%) and for restrictions on the sale of cigarettes and tobacco near schools (69.9%). More supported than opposed raising the legal age of sale of cigarettes and tobacco to 21 (49.2% supported; 30.7% opposed; 20.1% unsure) and reducing the number of retailers selling tobacco in neighbourhoods with a high density of tobacco retailers (46.5% supported; 23.3% opposed; 30.2% unsure). More opposed than supported a ban on the sale of cigarettes and tobacco to everyone born after a certain year from 2030 onward (a 'tobacco-free generation') (41.3% opposed; 34.5% supported; 24.2% unsure). Age was positively associated with support for raising the age of sale and inversely associated with requiring tobacco retailer licenses. Women were more likely to support raising the age of sale and reducing the number of retailers. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring tobacco retailer licensing and restrictions on sales near schools received majority support. Other tobacco availability policies received substantial support despite considerable opposition.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e-cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference-checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers. RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time-series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population-level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow-up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random-effects Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log-transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta-analysis where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time-series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow-up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow-up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD -0.81, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD -0.74, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow-up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention-to-treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per-protocol analyses (LMD -0.32, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time-series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low-certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short-term. There was moderate-certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low- to moderate-certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed. The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time-series studies that examine this association.
Asunto(s)
Cese del Hábito de Fumar , Productos de Tabaco , Humanos , Prevalencia , Fumar , Dispositivos para Dejar de Fumar TabacoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: To gain a better understanding of the complex and independent associations between different measures of socioeconomic position (SEP) and smoking in England. AIMS AND METHODS: Between March 2013 and January 2019 data were collected from 120 496 adults aged 16+ in England taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study. Of these, 18.04% (n = 21 720) were current smokers. Six indicators of SEP were measured: social grade, employment status, educational qualifications, home and car ownership and income. Models were constructed using ridge regression to assess the contribution of each measure of SEP, taking account of high collinearity. RESULTS: The strongest predictor of smoking status was housing tenure. Those who did not own their own home had twice the odds of smoking compared with homeowners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.01). Social grade, educational qualification, and income were also good predictors. Those in social grades C1 (OR = 1.04), C2 (OR = 1.29), D (OR = 1.39), and E (OR = 1.78) had higher odds of smoking than those in social grade AB. Similarly, those with A-level/equivalent (OR = 1.15), GCSE/vocational (OR = 1.48), other/still studying (OR = 1.12), and no post-16 qualifications (OR = 1.48) had higher odds of smoking than those with university qualifications, as did those who earned in the lowest (OR = 1.23), third (OR = 1.18), and second quartiles (OR = 1.06) compared with those earning in the highest. Associations between smoking and employment (OR = 1.03) and car ownership (OR = 1.05) were much smaller. CONCLUSIONS: Of a variety of socioeconomic measures, housing tenure appears to be the strongest independent predictor of smoking in England, followed by social grade, educational qualifications, and income. Employment status and car ownership have the lowest predictive power. IMPLICATIONS: This study used ridge regression, a technique which takes into account high collinearity between variables, to gain a better understanding of the independent associations between different measures of SEP and smoking in England. The findings provide guidance as to which SEP measures one could use when trying to identifying individuals most at risk from smoking, with housing tenure identified as the strongest independent predictor.
Asunto(s)
Empleo , Renta , Fumar/economía , Fumar/epidemiología , Factores Socioeconómicos , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Estudios Transversales , Escolaridad , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Femenino , Vivienda , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fumar/psicología , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Up-to-date monitoring of non-combustible nicotine products (e.g. e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTP); NNP) is important to assess their impact. To date, there is little evidence on the association between ever regular use (defined here as 1 year or more) of NNP and current smoking status. AIMS/METHODS: The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence, and sociodemographic, alcohol and smoking status correlates, of ever regular use of NNP in England in 2020. A cross-sectional survey of adults in England was conducted between February and June 2020. RESULTS: A total of 8486 adults were surveyed; 94.9% (8055) were complete cases. The weighted prevalence of ever regular NNP use was 5.4% (n = 436; 95% CI 5.0-6.0), of which 82% (n = 360; 95% CI 78.7-85.8) was single and 18% (n = 79; 95% CI 14.8-22) multiple product use. Amongst ever regular NNP users, the prevalence of ever regular NRT, e-cigarette and HTP use was 64.7% (95% CI 60.1-69), 43.4% (95% CI 38.8-48) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.4-4.5), respectively. In adjusted analysis, ever regular NNP use was associated with smoking status, being significantly higher among current (22.3%; adjusted OR (aOR) 34.9, 95% CI 24.0-50.8) and ex-smokers (12.7%, aOR 19.8, 95% CI 11.1-14.4) than among never-smokers (0.6%). More advantaged occupational grade (aOR, 1.27 95% CI 1.02-1.57) and at least hazardous alcohol use (aOR, 1.38 95% CI 1.06-1.78) were associated with greater prevalence of ever regular NNP use. CONCLUSIONS: Ever regularly using NNP was highest among smokers and ex-smokers and rare among never-smokers. Among people who have ever regularly used NNP, NRT is the most popular.
Asunto(s)
Sistemas Electrónicos de Liberación de Nicotina , Cese del Hábito de Fumar , Adulto , Estudios Transversales , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Humanos , Nicotina , Prevalencia , Dispositivos para Dejar de Fumar TabacoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Smoking has played a significant role in the historical culture of mental healthcare settings. Mental health professionals (MHPs) often hold dismissive attitudes regarding the importance of smoking cessation in the context of mental healthcare. In 2007, English mental health inpatient buildings were required by law to become smoke-free, and healthcare trusts have more recently begun to implement comprehensive policies (i.e. smoke-free grounds and buildings) and staff training in response to national guidance. It is therefore important to explore MHPs practice around smoking, smoking cessation, and smoke-free policy adherence. This study aimed to explore these issues by using the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model to systematically identify barriers to, and facilitators for, MHPs addressing smoking with their patients. METHODS: Five focus groups with a total of 36 MHPs were conducted between March and August 2017. MHPs were recruited from one of the largest mental health trusts in Europe. Discussions were guided by a semi-structured guide. Responses were audio recorded, transcribed and coded using thematic analysis and the COM-B framework. RESULTS: Addressing smoking with patients was undermined by MHPs' 1) psychological capability to recall training content, misunderstand the potential benefits of addressing patient smoking and harm reduction approaches; 2) physical opportunity in terms of time constraints, and easy accessibility of tobacco in the community; 3) social opportunity in terms of increased cultural value of tobacco following inpatient smoke-free policy implementation, and lack of support from colleagues to enforce the smoke-free policy; 4) automatic motivation, including intrinsic biases regarding patients abilities and motivations to quit, and 5) reflective motivation, including perceived job role and decision making processes related to addressing behaviours deemed more important than smoking. The main facilitating factors identified were MHPs' having opportunity in the form of patients asking directly for support, and MHPs having access to resources such as stop smoking services and spirometers. CONCLUSION: Multiple barriers were identified across all key domains of the COM-B framework that undermine MHPs' practice regarding smoking cessation. Few facilitators were identified which may have implications for future smoke-free policy and clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Personal de Salud/psicología , Servicios de Salud Mental , Motivación , Investigación Cualitativa , Política para Fumadores , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/psicología , Adulto , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Femenino , Humanos , Pacientes Internos/psicología , Masculino , Trastornos Mentales/epidemiología , Trastornos Mentales/psicología , Trastornos Mentales/terapia , Persona de Mediana Edad , Cese del Hábito de Fumar/métodos , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends providers screen their prenatal patients for 11 psychosocial issues because they affect patient mental and physical well-being. The prevalence and co-occurrence of these issues have rarely been compared among pregnant women who do and do not report recent illicit substance use. METHOD: Seven psychosocial issues identified by ACOG were operationalized using National Survey on Drug Use and Health variables. We report weighted prevalence and adjusted risk ratios (ARR) for these issues in pregnant women who did versus did not report past-month illicit substance use. RESULTS: Pregnant women (n = 3,657) who reported past-month illicit substance use (6.3%; 95% CI [5.4-7.3]) had significantly higher prevalence of almost all psychosocial issues examined, including past-month cigarette smoking (44.9% versus 9.5%; ARR = 2.84, 95% CI [2.21-3.65]); past-month alcohol use, 36.1% versus 7.9%; ARR = 4.71 (3.59-6.18); serious past-month distress, 23.0% versus 5.0%; ARR = 3.51 (2.39-5.15); no health insurance, 11.7% versus 6.2%; ARR = 1.71 (1.07-2.74); and receipt of food stamps, 45.0% versus 24.0%; ARR = 1.40 (1.18-1.67). Moving 3 + times in the past year followed a similar pattern, but results were compatible with there being no difference, 10.6% versus 5.5%; ARR = 1.39 (0.86-2.25). The majority of pregnant women reporting illicit substance use endorsed experiencing ≥ 2 psychosocial issues while the majority of those who did not report illicit substance use did not endorse any. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women who use illicit substances experience higher prevalence and greater co-occurrence of psychosocial issues compared to those who do not, reinforcing recommendations for multidisciplinary approaches to care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Asunto(s)
Fumar Cigarrillos , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Mujeres Embarazadas/psicología , Prevalencia , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/epidemiología , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/psicología , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/epidemiología , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/psicología , Fumar Cigarrillos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
PURPOSE: To estimate the national prevalence of tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use among U.S. adolescents (age 12-17) and young adults (aged 18-25; adolescents and young adults [AYAs]) with a disability and examine associations between disability and substance use from 2015 to 2019. METHODS: Data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health were used to estimate the prevalence of tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use among AYAs with disabilities. Modified Poisson regression models evaluated linear time trends in past-month substance use and estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) for past-month cigarette, any tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use. RESULTS: Adolescents with any disability had a higher prevalence of past-month cigarette (aPR = 1.87; 95% CI 1.67-2.09), alcohol (aPR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.11-1.31), and marijuana use (aPR = 1.47; 95% CI 1.36-1.60) compared to those without disabilities. Cigarette smoking among adolescents decreased over this time period; however, the decline among adolescents without a disability was greater than those with any disability. Young adults with any disability had a higher prevalence of past-month cigarette (aPR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.35-1.48) and marijuana use (aPR = 1.39; 95% CI 1.34-1.45), but a lower prevalence of past-month alcohol use (aPR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.90-0.95) than those without disabilities. Alcohol use remained constant among young adults with any disability but decreased for those without disabilities. DISCUSSION: Population-level disparities in cigarette and marijuana use exist in AYAs with disabilities. Future studies should identify strategies tailored to AYAs with disabilities to encourage smoking cessation and prevent cannabis use disorder.
Asunto(s)
Fumar Marihuana , Uso de la Marihuana , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Uso de Tabaco , Consumo de Alcohol en Menores , Adolescente , Adulto , Niño , Humanos , Adulto Joven , Cannabis , Fumar Marihuana/epidemiología , Uso de la Marihuana/epidemiología , Prevalencia , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/epidemiología , Uso de Tabaco/epidemiología , Personas con DiscapacidadRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Gambling is associated with cigarette smoking and alcohol consumption. We explored the intersection of gambling across all risk levels of harm with smoking and alcohol use among adults in Great Britain. DESIGN: A nationally representative cross-sectional survey in October 2022. SETTING: Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS: A weighted total of 2398 adults (18+ years). OUTCOME MEASURES: We examined the prevalence of past-year gambling and, among those reporting gambling, assessed the associations between the outcome of any risk of harm from gambling (scoring >0 on the Problem Gambling Severity Index) and the binary predictor variables of current cigarette smoking and higher risk alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C score≥4). We also explored data on weekly expenditure on gambling with smoking and alcohol use among those categorised at any-risk of harm from gambling. RESULTS: Overall, 43.6% (95% CI 41.2% to 45.9%) of adults gambled in the past year. Among these, 7.3% (95% CI 5.3% to 9.3%) were classified at any-risk of harm from gambling, 16.0% (95% CI 13.2% to 18.8%) were currently smoking and 40.8% (95% CI 37.2% to 44.4%) were drinking at increasing and higher risk levels. There were no associations between any risk of harm from gambling and current smoking (OR adjusted=0.80, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.66) or drinking at increasing and higher risk levels (OR adjusted=0.94, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.69), respectively. Analyses using Bayes factors indicated that these data were insensitive to distinguish no effect from a range of associations (OR=95% CI 0.5 to 1.9). The mean weekly spend on gambling was £7.69 (95% CI £5.17 to £10.21) overall, £4.80 (95% CI £4.18 to £5.43) among those classified as at no risk and £45.68 (95% CI £12.07 to £79.29) among those at any risk of harm from gambling. CONCLUSIONS: Pilot data in a population-level survey on smoking and alcohol use yielded similar estimates to other population-level surveys on gambling participation and at-risk gambling. Further data are needed to elucidate the intersections more reliably between gambling, smoking and alcohol use and inform population-level approaches to reduce harm.
Asunto(s)
Fumar Cigarrillos , Juego de Azar , Adulto , Humanos , Juego de Azar/epidemiología , Consumo de Bebidas Alcohólicas/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Teorema de Bayes , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The main reasons women in the general population seek abortion are financial, timing, and partner-related reasons. While women with opioid use disorder (OUD) appear to use abortion services more than women in the general population, reasons for abortion in this group have not been examined to our knowledge. METHOD: Female patients aged 18-50 years in OUD treatment at 22 randomly selected facilities in Michigan were surveyed. The survey included items assessing reproductive health history. Women who reported having one or more abortions were asked to think back to that time and their reasons for choosing abortion. Twenty potential reasons and a write-in option were offered; women could endorse as many as applied. RESULTS: Of 260 women surveyed, 84 reported having an abortion. Of these, most (77.4%) reported multiple reasons for having an abortion. The most common reasons for having an abortion were not having money to take care of a baby (54.8%), feeling too young to have a child and not feeling ready to be a mother (both 42.9%), not loving the father and other partner-related concerns (25.0%-32.1%), and having concerns about the effects of their drug use (28.6%). No combination of reasons for abortion emerged as more prevalent than any other. CONCLUSIONS: Like women in the general population, women in treatment for OUD had not only abortions because of financial, timing, and partner-related reasons but also concerns about the effects of their drug use. These results underscore the multiple and often interrelated reasons that lead women to seek abortion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides , Femenino , Humanos , Embarazo , Toma de Decisiones , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/terapia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Adulto , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
Objective It is often believed that pregnant women who use illicit substances are more likely to experience psychosocial issues like smoking, depression, and inadequate health care compared to pregnant women who do not. However, the prevalence of these psychosocial issues has rarely been calculated and compared using nationally representative data. Methods Important psychosocial issues identified by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were operationalized using variables in the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. We report weighted prevalence and age-adjusted odds ratios for these issues in pregnant women who did vs. did not report past-month illicit substance use. Results Pregnant women (n = 3,657) who reported past-month illicit substance use (6.3%; 95% CI 5.4-7.0) had significantly higher rates of almost all psychosocial issues examined, including past-month cigarette smoking (44.9% vs. 6.5%; age-adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 7.14 (95% CI 4.98-10.20)); past-month alcohol use (36.1% vs. 7.8%; AOR = 6.80 (4.69, 9.86)); serious past-month distress (23.0% vs. 5.0%; AOR = 4.99 (3.07-8.11)); no health insurance (11.7% vs. 6.2%; AOR = 1.79 (1.07-2.99)); and receipt of food stamps (45.0% vs. 24.0%; AOR = 2.26 (1.55-3.29)). Moving 3 + times in the past year followed a similar pattern, but results were compatible with there being no difference between groups (10.6% vs. 5.5%; AOR = 1.59 (0.95-2.66)). In contrast to other issues examined, English language proficiency was higher among those who reported illicit substance use (4.7% vs. 0.4%; AOR = 0.08 (0.01-0.63)). Conclusions Pregnant women who use illicit substances experience higher rates of most psychosocial issues compared to those who do not, reinforcing recommendations for multidisciplinary approaches to care.