The association between risk perceptions, anxiety, and self-reported changes in tobacco and nicotine product use due to COVID-19 in May-June 2020 in Israel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, reports about a possible protective effect of nicotine on COVID-19 conflicted with messaging by public health organizations about increased risks of COVID-19 due to smoking. The ambiguous information the public received, combined with COVID-19-induced anxiety, may have led to changes in tobacco or other nicotine product use. This study examined changes in use of combustible cigarettes (CCs), nargila (hookah/waterpipe), e-cigarettes, and IQOS and home-smoking behaviors. We also assessed COVID-19 related anxiety and perceptions regarding changes in risk of COVID-19 severity due to smoking. METHODS: We used cross-sectional data from a population telephone survey that was conducted in Israel in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (May-June 2020) and included 420 adult (age 18+) individuals who reported having ever used CCs (n = 391), nargila (n = 193), and/or electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes)/heated tobacco products (e.g., IQOS) (n = 52). Respondents were asked about the effect that COVID-19 had on their nicotine product use (quit/reduced use, no change, increased use). We assessed changes in product use, risk perceptions, and anxiety using adjusted multinomial logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Most respondents did not change their frequency of product use (CCs: 81.0%, nargila: 88.2%, e-cigarettes/IQOS: 96.8%). A small percentage either decreased use (CCs: 7.2%, nargila: 3.2%, e-cigarettes/IQOS:2.4%) or increased use (CCs:11.8%, nargila:8.6%, e-cigarettes/IQOS:+ 0.9%). 55.6% of respondents used a product in the home prior to COVID-19; but during the first lockdown COVID-19 period, a greater percentage increased (12.6%) than decreased (4.0%) their home use. Higher levels of anxiety due to COVID-19 were associated with increased home smoking (aOR = 1.59, 95% CI:1.04-2.42, p = 0.02). Many respondents believed that increased severity of COVID-19 illness was associated with CCs (62.0%) and e-cigarettes/vaping (45.3%), with uncertainty about the association being lower for CCs (20.5%) than for vaping (41.3%). CONCLUSIONS: While many respondents believed that nicotine product use (particularly CCs and e-cigarettes) was associated with increased risk of COVID-19 disease severity, the majority of users did not change their tobacco/nicotine use. The confusion about the relationship between tobacco use and COVID-19 calls for clear evidence-based messaging from governments. The association between home smoking and increased COVID-19-related stress suggests the need for campaigns and resources to prevent smoking in the home, particularly during times of stress.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".