Patterns of cigarette, heated tobacco product, and nicotinevaping product use among Korean adults: Findings from the2020 ITC Korea Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Non-combustible nicotine products (NCNPs), such as heated tobacco products (HTPs) and nicotine vaping products (NVPs) have gained a significant nicotine market share in South Korea. This descriptive study examined patterns of regular cigarette and NCNP use among South Korean adults. METHODS: Data were from the 2020 International Tobacco Control Korea Survey and included 4016 adults (aged ≥19 years) in the Republic of Korea who were regularly (at least weekly) using at least one NCNP (NVP/HTP, n=2117) and/or smoked cigarettes (n=3763) at the time of the survey. Weighted descriptive estimates were computed to assess respondents' nicotine product use among all respondents (exclusive, dual, or triple use). Thereafter, we identified sociodemographic characteristics associated with NCNP use (n=2117). RESULTS: Among Korean adults who were smoking cigarettes, 83.1% (95% CI: 81.6-84.6) did so exclusively, and 16.9% (95% CI: 15.4-18.4) smoked cigarettes and used NCNPs. Among those who used HTPs (n=1877), 14.9% (95% CI: 11.5-18.4) did so exclusively, 59.6% used HTPs and smoked cigarettes (95% CI: 55.4-63.1), 4.2% used HTPs and vaped (95% CI: 11.5-18.4), and 21.6% (95% CI: 18.9-24.2) used all three products. Of adults who used HTPs and smoked cigarettes, 86.6% smoked daily. Among those who vaped (n=865), 13.3% did so exclusively (95% CI: 9.4-17.1), 55.6% (95% CI: 49.6-61.5) vaped and smoked cigarettes, 5.1% (95% CI: 1.7-8.6) used HTPs and vaped, and 26.1% (95% CI: 22.1-30.1) used all three products. Of adults who vaped and smoked cigarettes, 82.4% (95% CI: 77.1-87.7) smoked daily. CONCLUSIONS: Cigarettes remain the most commonly used nicotine product in South Korea, and among adults using heated tobacco and/or vaping products, the majority were also smoking. Research is urgently needed to assess whether adults who are using an NCNP are doing so to quit, or rather to complement their cigarette smoking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".