Understanding perceived addiction to and addictiveness of electronic cigarettes among electronic cigarette users: a cross‐sectional analysis of the International Tobacco Control Smoking and Vaping (ITC 4CV) England Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The addictive potential of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) remains to be fully understood. We identified patterns and correlates of perceived addiction to e-cigarettes and perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes relative to tobacco cigarettes (relative addictiveness) in dual users as well as exclusive e-cigarette users. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational study using cross-sectional survey data from England (2016) from the International Tobacco Control Project (ITC) Four Country Smoking and Vaping (4CV) survey. The study comprised 832 current e-cigarette users who had been vaping for at least 4 months. MEASUREMENTS: Perceived addiction to e-cigarettes and relative addictiveness of e-cigarettes were examined. Socio-demographic factors were age, gender and education; markers of addiction included urge to vape, time to first vape after waking and nicotine strength used; vaping and smoking characteristics included frequency and duration of e-cigarette use, intention to quit, adjustable power or temperature, enjoyment, satisfaction relative to tobacco cigarettes and tobacco cigarette smoking status. FINDINGS: A total of 17% of participants reported feeling very addicted to e-cigarettes, while 40% considered e-cigarettes equally/more addictive than tobacco cigarettes. Those who felt very addicted had higher odds of regarding e-cigarettes as more addictive than tobacco cigarettes (odds ratio 3.4, 95% confidence interval 2.3-5.1). All markers of addiction, daily use and enjoyment were associated with higher perceived addiction, whereas time to first vape after waking, daily vaping and perceiving vaping as less satisfying than smoking were associated with relative addictiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Markers of addiction to e-cigarettes appear to correspond with perceived addiction to e-cigarettes, suggesting that self-reported perceived addiction might serve as an indicator of addiction. Prevalence both of markers of addiction and perceived addiction were comparatively low overall, suggesting a limited but relevant addictive potential of e-cigarettes. Additionally, positive and negative reinforcement, reflected here by enjoyment and relative satisfaction, might play a role in e-cigarette addiction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".