RESEARCH PAPER
E-cigarette use and its predictors: Results from an online cross-sectional survey in Poland
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
2
Nowy Dwor Medical Centre, Nowy Dwor, Poland
3
J. Babinski Psychiatric Hospital, Lodz, Poland
4
Social and Technical Department, State Higher Vocational School, Konin, Poland
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Pawel Lewek   

Department of Family Medicine, Medical University of Lodz, ul. Narutowicza 60, 90-136 Lodz, Poland
Publish date: 2019-11-08
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2019;17(November):79
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Since the invention of electronic cigarettes (ECs) in 2003, their use has spread worldwide; however, little is known about the profiles of EC users. Understanding the motivators for using ECs enables more accurate prediction of their use and more effective direction of pro-health activities. Our objective was to identify the factors that may influence the decision to use ECs and their possible adverse effects according to the experiences of EC users.

Methods:
A cross-sectional online survey was administered between 1 July 2016 and 1 January 2017 among 1288 Polish-speaking users of social networks and EC forums. To explore associations between current EC use and other factors, multivariate binary logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results:
The final analysis included 1142 survey participants: mean age 25.9 years (± 11.1), 85.6% were male, 50.3% had secondary education, 98.2% were Polish citizens, and 81.0% were current EC users. Male gender, lower education, aged ≤40 years, former cigarette smoking, previous attempts to quit smoking, perception of lack of harmful effects of ECs, perception of ECs as being tastier and cheaper than cigarettes, awareness of the advantages of ECs and their use as a smoking cessation aid were all statistically significant factors increasing the risk of EC use. The majority of study participants claimed that ECs are less addictive or not addictive compared to cigarettes (62.6%) and less harmful or not harmful (89.5%) compared to cigarettes. The most common reported side effects of ECs were dryness in the mouth (8.3%), itching in the throat (4.5%) and nausea (1.9%).

Conclusions:
Males aged ≤40 years with a lower level education were more likely to use ECs in the studied Polish population. The perception that ECs are less harmful than regular cigarettes is a factor increasing the odds of EC use; however, although ECs have few adverse effects, they nevertheless exist.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge Edward Lowczowski for English language assistance.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have each completed and submitted an ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. P. Lewek and P. Kardas report grants from European Union’s Health Programme and from European Commission ERASMUS+ Project, outside the submitted work. P. Kardas reports personal fees from Aflofarm, Fresenius, Lek-AM, Novartis, Polpharma and Sandoz, outside the submitted work.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
PL, BW, PM and PK were involved in the study design; PL, BW and PM did the data collection; JS and PL performed the statistical analysis; PL and PK did the data interpretation; PL and PK prepared the manuscript; PL conducted the literature search; PK and PL obtained funding for this study.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Harrell PT, Simmons VN, Correa JB, Padhya TA, Brandon TH. Electronic nicotine delivery systems ("e-cigarettes"): review of safety and smoking cessation efficacy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(3):381-393. doi:10.1177/0194599814536847.
 
2.
Pisinger C, Døssing M. A systematic review of health effects of electronic cigarettes. Prev Med. 2014;69:248-260. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.10.009.
 
3.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1.2 Composition. In: Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks of chemicals to humans. Vol. 83. Lyon, France: IARC; 2004:59.
 
4.
Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Fik M, et al. Carbonyl compounds in electronic cigarette vapors: effects of nicotine solvent and battery output voltage. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(10):1319-1326. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu078.
 
5.
Boseley S. Hon Lik invented the e-cigarette to quit smoking – but now he's a dual user. The Guardian. June 9, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/so.... Accessed October 6, 2019.
 
6.
Goniewicz ML, Kuma T, Gawron M, Knysak J, Kosmider L. Nicotine levels in electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(1):158-166. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts103.
 
7.
Cantrell J, Huang J, Greenberg M, Willett J, Hair E, Vallone D. History and Current Trends in the Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Retail Marketplace in the United States: 2010-2016. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty214.
 
8.
Huang Y. E-Cigarettes: China's Next Growth Industry. Forbes. May 27, 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/y.... Accessed July 6, 2019.
 
9.
Goniewicz ML, Zielinska-Danch W. Electronic cigarette use among teenagers and young adults in Poland. Pediatrics. 2012;130(4):e879-e885. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3448.
 
10.
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Electronic Non-Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS/ENNDS): Report by WHO. FCTC/COP/7/11 August 2016. http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/co.... Accessed October 6, 2019.
 
11.
Pénzes M, Foley KL, Balázs P, Urbán R. Intention to Experiment With E-Cigarettes in a Cross-Sectional Survey of Undergraduate University Students in Hungary. Subst Use Misuse. 2016;51(9):1083-1092. doi:10.3109/10826084.2016.1160116.
 
12.
Bunch K, Fu M, Ballbè M, et al. Motivation and main flavour of use, use with nicotine and dual use of electronic cigarettes in Barcelona, Spain: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e018329. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018329.
 
13.
Brożek G, Jankowski M, Zejda J, Jarosińska A, Idzik A, Bańka P. E-smoking among students of medicine — frequency, pattern and motivations. Adv Respir Med. 2017;85(1):8-14. doi:10.5603/arm.2017.0003.
 
14.
Goniewicz ML, Leigh NJ, Gawron M, et al. Dual use of electronic and tobacco cigarettes among adolescents: a cross-sectional study in Poland. Int J Public Health. 2016;61(2):189-197. doi:10.1007/s00038-015-0756-x.
 
15.
Shpakou A, Kovalevskiy V, Klimatskaia L, et al. Traditional smoking and e-smoking among medical students and students-athletes – popularity and motivation. Fam Med Prim Care Rev. 2018;20(1):61-66. doi:10.5114/fmpcr.2018.73705.
 
16.
Zhao L, Mbulo L, Palipudi K, Wang J, King B. Awareness and use of e-cigarettes among urban residents in China. Tob Induc Dis. 2019;17(July). doi:10.18332/tid/109904.
 
17.
Vardavas CI, Filippidis FT, Agaku IT. Determinants and prevalence of e-cigarette use throughout the European Union: a secondary analysis of 26 566 youth and adults from 27 Countries. Tob Control. 2015;24(5):442-448. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051394.
 
18.
Piñeiro B, Correa JB, Simmons VN, et al. Gender differences in use and expectancies of e-cigarettes: Online survey results. Addict Behav. 2016;52:91-97. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.09.006.
 
19.
US Department of Health and Human Services. E-Cigarette Use Among Youth and Young Adults. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
 
20.
Harlow AF, Stokes A, Brooks DR. Socioeconomic and Racial/Ethnic Differences in E-Cigarette Uptake Among Cigarette Smokers: Longitudinal Analysis of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(10):1385-1393. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty141.
 
21.
Fadus MC, Smith TT, Squeglia LM. The rise of e-cigarettes, pod mod devices, and JUUL among youth: Factors influencing use, health implications, and downstream effects. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;201:85-93. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.04.011.
 
22.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Review of the Health Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. Public Health Consequences of e-cigarettes. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2018.
 
23.
Dutra LM, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarettes and conventional cigarette use among U.S. adolescents: a cross-sectional study. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(7):610-617. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.5488.
 
24.
Farsalinos KE, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V. Characteristics, perceived side effects and benefits of electronic cigarette use: a worldwide survey of more than 19,000 consumers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014;11(4):4356-4373. doi:10.3390/ijerph110404356.
 
25.
East K, Brose LS, McNeill A, Cheeseman H, Arnott D, Hitchman SC. Harm perceptions of electronic cigarettes and nicotine: A nationally representative cross-sectional survey of young people in Great Britain. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;192:257-263. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.08.016.
 
26.
Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega.... Accessed October 6, 2019.
 
27.
Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej. Ustawa z dnia 22 lipca 2016 r. o zmianie ustawy o ochronie zdrowia przed następstwami używania tytoniu i wyrobów tytoniowych (Act of 22 July 2016 amending the act on protection of health against the consequences of using tobacco and tobacco products).
 
28.
Zhu SH, Gamst A, Lee M, Cummins S, Yin L, Zoref L. The use and perception of electronic cigarettes and snus among the U.S. population. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e79332. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079332.
 
29.
Yao T, Jiang N, Grana R, Ling PM, Glantz SA. A content analysis of electronic cigarette manufacturer websites in China. Tob Control. 2014;25(2):188-194. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051840.
 
30.
European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 458. Attitudes of Europeans Towards Tobacco and electronic cigarettes. https://ec.europa.eu/commfront.... Published May, 2017. Accessed July 6, 2019.
 
31.
Erku DA, Gartner CE, Tengphakwaen U, Morphett K, Steadman KJ. Nicotine vaping product use, harm perception and policy support among pharmacy customers in Brisbane, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2019;38(6). doi:10.1111/dar.12984.
 
32.
Cooper M, Harrell MB, Pérez A, Delk J, Perry CL. Flavorings and Perceived Harm and Addictiveness of E-cigarettes among Youth. Tob Regul Sci. 2016;2(3):278-289. doi:10.18001/trs.2.3.7.
 
33.
Margolis KA, Donaldson EA, Portnoy DB, Robinson J, Neff LJ, Jamal A. E-cigarette openness, curiosity, harm perceptions and advertising exposure among U.S. middle and high school students. Prev Med. 2018;112:119-125. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.04.017.
 
34.
Amrock SM, Zakhar J, Zhou S, Weitzman M. Perception of e-cigarette harm and its correlation with use among U.S. adolescents. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(3):330-336. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu156.
 
35.
Abafalvi L, Pénzes M, Urbán R, et al. Perceived health effects of vaping among Hungarian adult e-cigarette-only and dual users: a cross-sectional internet survey. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):302. doi:10.1186/s12889-019-6629-0.
 
36.
Glasser AM, Collins L, Pearson JL, et al. Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(2):e33-e66. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.036.
 
37.
Walele T, Sharma G, Savioz R, Martin C, Williams J. A randomised, crossover study on an electronic vapour product, a nicotine inhalator and a conventional cigarette. Part B: Safety and subjective effects. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2016;74:193-199. doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.12.004.
 
38.
Huang J, Kim Y, Vera L, Emery S. Electronic cigarettes among priority populations: role of smoking cessation and tobacco control policies. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(2):199-209. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2015.06.032.
 
39.
Kalkhoran S, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med. 2016;4(2):116-128. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00521-4.
 
40.
Central Statistical Office of Poland. Społeczeństwo informacyjne w Polsce w 2017 r. https://stat.gov.pl/download/g.... Published 2017. Accessed October 6, 2019.
 
eISSN:1617-9625