Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34791744›Full record

Observational studyAddiction (Abingdon, England)2022

Understanding contexts of smoking and vaping among dual users: analysis of ecological momentary assessment data.

Megan E Piper, Timothy B Baker, Deejay Zwaga, Daniel M Bolt, Kate H Kobinsky, Douglas E Jorenby

Open access · greenAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. An Evaluation of the Contextual Factors Associated With the Use of Either Tobacco or Electronic Cigarettes in Individuals Who Dual Use.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Megan E PiperSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9876-5460
Timothy B BakerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Deejay ZwagaSchool of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Daniel M BoltDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Kate H KobinskySchool of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Douglas E JorenbySchool of Medicine and Public Health, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

E-Cigarettes: Dynamic Patterns of Use and Health EffectsR01CA190025 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI JORENBY, DOUGLAS E, PIPER, MEGAN E · 2015 to 2019
$4.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA190025
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo understand dual users' cigarette and e-cigarette use patterns, including the contexts in which they vape versus smoke and to understand how environmental and internal contexts and smoking patterns differ between dual users and exclusive smokers.

designLongitudinal observational trial.

settingResearch center in Wisconsin, USA.

participantsAdult dual users (n = 162) and adults who exclusively smoked (n = 143), with no plans to quit smoking or vaping in the next 30 days. MEASUREMENTS: Participants carried smartphones for 2 weeks at baseline to record each use event for the two products and report on the context of their product use. The percentage of mornings where participants vaped first versus smoked were used to compute e-cigarette dependence.

findingsHierarchical linear regression models with random slopes and intercepts examined the within- and between-subject effects of context on the likelihood of vaping (versus smoking); significant fixed effects were tested for moderation by e-cigarette dependence. Dual users reported significantly more puffs/cigarette [mean = 13.1, standard deviation (SD) = 10.2] than puffs/vape event (mean = 11.7, SD = 11.5; P = 0.01). E-cigarette dependence moderated the influence of social cues (t-ratio = 2.4, P = 0.02) and smoking restrictions (t-ratio = 3.1, P = 0.003) on the likelihood of vaping versus smoking [odds ratio (OR) = 2.30, P = 0.02]. Context was more related to which product was used in those of low versus higher e-cigarette dependence. Reports of strong cravings to smoke and positive expectancies for cigarettes were associated with a reduced likelihood of vaping, whereas strong cravings to vape and positive vaping expectancies were related to increased likelihood of vaping.

conclusionsAmong dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes with no motivation to quit, vaping appears to be related to internal cues and more highly linked with social contexts and smoking restrictions (i.e. under stronger external stimulus control) among those with low to moderate e-cigarette dependence compared with high e-cigarette dependence. These findings illustrate the importance of contextual factors in tobacco product use among dual users with the influence of context being reduced at high levels of e-cigarette dependence.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsSmoking CessationTobacco ProductsVapingAdultEcological Momentary AssessmentHumansCigarettescontextscuesdependencee-cigarettesENDSvaping

Identifiers

PMID34791744
PMCPMC9940410
OpenAlexW3213426563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.