Reasons for regular vaping and for its discontinuation among smokers and recent ex‐smokers: findings from the 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To examine current and ex-smokers' reasons for continuing or discontinuing regular use of nicotine vaping products (NVPs). DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study of 2722 current daily/weekly, and 921 ex-daily/weekly, adult vapers who were either current or ex-cigarette smokers when surveyed. SETTING: 2016 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping wave 1 (4CV1) surveys conducted in the United States (n = 1159), England (n = 1269), Canada (n = 964) and Australia (n = 251). MEASUREMENTS: Current vapers were asked about the following reasons for regular NVP use: less harmful to others, social acceptance, enjoyment, use in smoke-free areas, affordability and managing smoking behaviour. Ex-vapers were asked about the following reasons for discontinuing regular NVP use: addiction concerns, affordability, negative experiences, perceived social unacceptability, safety concerns, product dissatisfaction, inconvenience, unhelpfulness for quitting, unhelpfulness for managing cravings and not needed for smoking relapse prevention. Possible correlates of NVP use and discontinuation, including smoking status, smoking/vaping frequency, quit duration (ex-smokers only), country, age and type of NVP device used, were examined using multivariate logistic regression models. FINDINGS: For current smokers, the top three reasons for current regular NVP use were: helpful for cutting down smoking (85.6%), less harmful to others (77.9%) and helpful for quitting smoking (77.4%). The top three reasons for discontinuing vaping were: not being satisfying (77.9%), unhelpfulness for cravings (63.2%), and unhelpfulness for quitting smoking (52.4%). For ex-smokers, the top three reasons for current vaping were: enjoyment (90.6%), less harmful to others (90%) and affordability (89.5%); and for discontinuing were: not needed to stay quit (77.3%), not being satisfying (49.5%) and safety concerns (44%). Reported reasons varied by user characteristics, including age, country and NVP device type. CONCLUSIONS: Regular use of nicotine vaping products is mainly motivated by its perceived benefits, especially for reducing or quitting smoking, whereas its discontinuation is motivated by perceived lack of such benefits, with some variation by user characteristics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".