Reasons for using e-cigarettes among adults who smoke: comparing the findings from the 2016 and 2020 ITC Korea Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes is a growing usage pattern in adults, but little is known about the motivations underlying this trend. We investigated the reasons for e-cigarette use among adults who smoke, considering variation in sociodemographic subgroups. METHODS: This repeated cross-sectional study analysed adults who smoked at least weekly and vaped at any frequency. Data were from the International Tobacco Control Korea Surveys conducted in 2016 (n=164) and 2020 (n=1088). Fourteen reasons for e-cigarette use were assessed in both waves. Subgroup analyses were performed by age, sex and educational level. RESULTS: The top reasons for e-cigarette use in 2020 were curiosity (62.8%), less harmful than smoking (45.4%) and taste (43.2%). Curiosity was the most cited across age, sex and education subgroups. Significant differences were observed in 2020 compared with 2016, with lower percentages in goal-oriented reasons: helping quit smoking (36.3% vs 48.9%; p=0.017), helping cut down smoking (35.3% vs 52.7%; p=0.001), less harmful to others (39.0% vs 54.6%; p=0.003) and more acceptable (31.6% vs 61.2%; p<0.001). By contrast, non-goal-oriented reasons showed higher percentages in 2020, such as curiosity (62.8% vs 27.9%; p<0.001), taste (43.2% vs 22.1%; p<0.001) and enjoyment (26.8% vs 8.6%; p<0.001). In 2020, a majority of adults who smoked and vaped (53.3%) reported no intention to quit or reduce smoking. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette use for curiosity and pleasure predominated among adults who smoked. The reasons for dual use in adults have shifted from goal-oriented to non-goal-oriented.
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".