IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0198047.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are electronic nicotine delivery systems helping cigarette smokers quit? Evidence from a prospective cohort study of U.S. adult smokers, 2015–2016

Author

Listed:
  • Scott R Weaver
  • Jidong Huang
  • Terry F Pechacek
  • John Wesley Heath
  • David L Ashley
  • Michael P Eriksen

Abstract

Background: The potential of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) to reduce the cardiovascular and other disease risks of smoking is of great interest. While many smokers report using ENDS for cessation, their impact under real-world use patterns and conditions on adult smokers’ quitting behavior is uncertain. The objective of this study was to generate more recent and comprehensive evidence on the effect of “real world” ENDS use on the population quit rates of adult smokers while taking account of frequency and duration of use, device type, e-liquid flavor, and reasons for use. Methods and findings: We conducted a population-based, prospective cohort study of a random probability sample of 1284 U.S. adult smokers recruited in August/September 2015 and re-contacted one-year later (September 2016) from GfK’s KnowledgePanel, a national, probability-based web-panel designed to be representative of non-institutionalized U.S. adults. Among the 1081 baseline smokers who remained members of KnowledgePanel, 858 completed the follow-up survey. The primary outcome was smoking abstinence for at least 30 days prior to follow-up. Secondary outcomes were making a quit attempt during the 12-month study period and number of cigarettes smoked per day at follow-up. The adjusted odds of quitting smoking were lower for those that used ENDS at baseline (9.4%, 95% CI = 5.22%-16.38%; AOR = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.13–0.72) compared to smokers who did not use at ENDS (18.9%, 95% CI = 14.24%-24.68%). Smokers who used ENDS daily at some point during the study period were also less likely to quit smoking than nonusers (AOR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04–0.82). Limited ability to draw causal inferences from the observational design and a lack of biochemical verification of quitting smoking or ENDS use are limitations of this study. Conclusions: We found no evidence that ENDS use, within context of the 2015–2016 US regulatory and tobacco/vaping market landscape, helped adult smokers quit at rates higher than smokers who did not use these products. Absent any meaningful changes, ENDS use among adult smokers is unlikely to be a sufficient solution to obtaining a meaningful increase in population quit rates. Additional research is needed to reconcile the divergent literature and monitor the impact of ENDS in an environment of rapidly evolving markets and regulatory policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott R Weaver & Jidong Huang & Terry F Pechacek & John Wesley Heath & David L Ashley & Michael P Eriksen, 2018. "Are electronic nicotine delivery systems helping cigarette smokers quit? Evidence from a prospective cohort study of U.S. adult smokers, 2015–2016," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-25, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198047
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198047
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0198047&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0198047?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0198047. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.