MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

E-Cigarette Characteristics and Cigarette Cessation Among Adults Who Use E-Cigarettes

2024· article· en· W4401214730 on OpenAlexaff
Karin A. Kasza, Cheryl Rivard, Maciej Ł. Goniewicz, Geoffrey T. Fong, David Hammond, K. Michael Cummings, Andrew Hyland

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsMedicineSmoking cessationPopulationElectronic cigaretteDiscontinuationEnvironmental healthDemographySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Population-level health outcomes associated with e-cigarettes depend in part on the association between e-cigarettes and combustible cigarette cessation. The US Food and Drug Administration has authority to regulate e-cigarette characteristics, including flavor and device type. Objective: To investigate whether e-cigarette characteristics are associated with cigarette cessation behaviors among adults in the US population who use e-cigarettes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using longitudinal data collected in 2014 to 2021 by the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study, a population-based, US nationally representative study. Participants were sampled from the civilian noninstitutionalized population using a 4-staged, stratified sampling design. Data were weighted and analyzed from 1985 adults ages 21 or older who smoked cigarettes daily and had used e-cigarettes in the past 30 days. Data were analyzed in May 2021 to May 2024. Exposures: The following e-cigarette characteristics were assessed: use frequency (daily and nondaily), flavor type (tobacco, menthol or mint, sweet, and combination), device type (disposable, cartridge, and tank), and year of data collection as a proxy for the evolving e-cigarette marketplace. Main Outcomes and Measures: The following cigarette cessation behaviors were assessed: making a cigarette quit attempt, cigarette cessation among individuals who made a quit attempt, and overall cigarette discontinuation regardless of quit attempts. Associations were evaluated between e-cigarette characteristics (assessed at baseline in 1 approach and assessed at follow-up in another approach) and cigarette cessation outcomes, controlling for demographic, cigarette smoking, and other e-cigarette use characteristics. Results: The study sample consisted of 1985 participants representing adults in the population (mean age, 40.0 years [95% CI, 39.2-40.9 years]; 49.4% [95% CI, 46.3%-52.6%] male; 11.4% [95% CI, 9.6%-13.4%] Black, 80.7% [95% CI, 77.8%-83.3%] White, and 8.0% [95% CI, 6.3%-10.0%] other race; 9.2% [95% CI, 7.5%-11.2%] Hispanic). Daily vs nondaily e-cigarette use was associated with greater overall cigarette discontinuation rates (12.8% [95% CI, 9.1%-17.7%] vs 6.1% [95% CI, 4.8%-7.7%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.26 [95% CI, 1.34-3.81]), and use of e-cigarettes in 2019 to 2021 vs 2014-2015 to 2015-2016 was also associated with greater overall cigarette discontinuation rates (12.0% [95% CI, 8.8%-16.0%] vs 5.3% [95% CI, 2.9%-9.3%]; aOR, 2.75 [95% CI, 1.13-6.67]). Use of menthol or mint vs tobacco flavor e-cigarettes was associated with greater overall cigarette discontinuation rates (9.2% [95% CI, 6.6%-12.8%] vs 4.7% [95% CI, 3.0%-7.1%]; aOR, 2.63 [95% CI, 1.32-5.27]) only when assessing e-cigarette use at baseline. E-cigarette device type was not associated with cigarette discontinuation rates in adjusted analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, daily e-cigarette use and use of e-cigarettes in 2019 to 2021 were consistently associated with greater cigarette discontinuation rates. These findings suggest that research focused on e-cigarettes marketed in recent years is needed to inform product regulation and public health policy decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207