Association of e-cigarette use and smoking cessation among Canadian young adult smokers: secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims This study examined the reasons for e-cigarette (EC) use, changes in self-efficacy and association between EC use and cessation of tobacco among Canadian young adult smokers over a 6-month period. Methods A secondary analysis was conducted using data from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of young adult Canadian smokers. EC exposure was defined as persistent, transient and non-use of ECs at baseline and follow-up. The association between EC exposure and cessation was examined using logistic regression and adjusting for co-variates. Results At 6-month follow-up, persistent EC use was associated with a lower cessation rate (13%) than transient (23%) or non-use (29%). After adjusting for covariates, non-use and transient use were associated with higher odds of cessation than persistent use (AOR = 3.23, 95% CI = 1.41–7.40, P < 0.01; AOR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.01–5.58, P < 0.05). At 6-month follow-up, persistent users (68%) had high self-efficacy as compared to transient (15%) or non-use (12%). Top reasons for EC use included use as a quit aid (67%), perceived use as less harmful (52%) and taste (32%). Conclusions Among young adult Canadian smokers enrolled in a RCT of a cessation intervention, persistent and transient use of ECs was associated with a lower smoking cessation rate at 6 months.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".