4.7 Article

Trends in use of e-cigarette device types and heated tobacco products from 2016 to 2020 in England

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92617-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Public Health England [558585/180737]
  2. Cancer Research UK [C1417/A22962]
  3. UK Research and Innovation Councils
  4. Department of Health and Social Care (England)
  5. MRC [MR/S037519/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that refillable tank e-cigarettes remain the most widely used device type in England, despite the growing popularity of pods and HTPs worldwide.
This study examined use trends of e-cigarette devices types, heated tobacco products (HTPs) and e-liquid nicotine concentrations in England from 2016 to 2020. Data were from a representative repeat cross-sectional survey of adults aged 16 or older. Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate proportions and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Of 75,355 participants, 5.3% (weighted=5.5%) were currently using e-cigarettes or HTPs, with the majority (98.7%) using e-cigarettes. Among e-cigarette users, 53.7% (CrI 52.0-55.1%) used tank devices, 23.7% (22.4-25.1%) mods, 17.3% (16.1-18.4%) pods, and 5.4% (4.7-6.2%) disposables. Tanks were the most widely used device type throughout 2016-2020. Mods were second until 2020, when pods overtook them. Among all e-cigarette/HTP users, prevalence of HTP use remains rare (3.4% in 2016 versus 4.2% in 2020), whereas JUUL use has risen from 3.4% in 2018 to 11.8% in 2020. Across all years, nicotine concentrations of <= 6 mg/ml were most widely (41.0%; 39.4-42.4%) and >= 20 mg/ml least widely used (4.1%; 3.4-4.9%). Among e-cigarette/HTP users, ex-smokers were more likely than current smokers to use mod and tank e-cigarettes, but less likely to use pods, disposables, JUUL and HTPs. In conclusion, despite growing popularity of pods and HTPs worldwide, refillable tank e-cigarettes remain the most widely used device type in England.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据