Search

To help health economic modelers respond to demands for greater use of complex systems models in public health. To propose identifiable features of such models and support researchers to plan public health modeling projects using these models. A working group of experts in complex systems modeling and economic evaluation was brought together to develop and jointly write guidance for the use of complex systems models for health economic analysis. The content of workshops was informed by a scoping review. A public health complex systems model for economic evaluation is defined as a quantitative, dynamic, non-linear model that incorporates feedback and interactions among model elements, in order to capture emergent outcomes and estimate health, economic and potentially other consequences to inform public policies. The guidance covers: when complex systems modeling is needed; principles for designing a complex systems model; and how to choose an appropriate modeling technique. This paper provides a definition to identify and characterize complex systems models for economic evaluations and proposes guidance on key aspects of the process for health economics analysis. This document will support the development of complex systems models, with impact on public health systems policy and decision making.

Background and aims Cigarette smoking takes place within a cultural and social context. Political views and practices are an important part of that context. To gain a better understanding of smoking, it may be helpful to understand its association with voting patterns as an expression of the political views and practices of the population who smoke. This study aimed to assess the association between cigarette smoking and voting intentions and to examine how far any association can be explained by sociodemographic factors and alcohol use. Methods Pooled monthly representative repeat cross-sectional household surveys of adults (16+) in England (N = 55,482) between 2015 and 2020 were used to assess the association between cigarette smoking status and voting intentions, and whether this was accounted for by age, occupational grade, gender, region and alcohol use. Voting intention was measured by asking ‘How would you vote if there were a General Election tomorrow?’ Respondents chose from a list of the major English political parties or indicated their intention not to vote. Results In adjusted multinomial regression, compared with intending to vote Conservative (majority party of government during the period), being undecided (aOR1.22 [1.13-1.33] Conclusions Controlling for a range of other factors, current as compared with never-smokers appear more likely to intend not to vote, to be undecided, to vote for Labour or a non-mainstream party, and less likely to vote for the Liberal Democrats, compared with the Conservative party.

Background Adherence to health-protective behaviours (regularly washing hands, wearing masks indoors, maintaining physical distancing, carrying disinfectant) remains paramount for the successful control of COVID-19 at population level. It is therefore important to monitor adherence and to identify factors associated with it. This study assessed: 1) rates of adherence, to key COVID-19 health-protective behaviours and 2) the socio-demographic, health and COVID-19-related factors associated with adherence. Methods Data were collected on a sample of UK-based adults during August–September 2020 (n = 1,969; lockdown restrictions were eased in the UK; period 1) and November 2020- January 2021 (n = 1944; second UK lockdown; period 2). Results Adherence ranged between 50–95%, with higher adherence during the period of stricter measures. Highest adherence was observed for wearing masks indoors (period 1: 80.2%, 95%CI 78.4%-82.0%, period 2: 92.4%, 95%CI 91.1%-93.6%) and lowest for carrying own disinfectant (period 1: 48.4%, 95%CI 46.2%-50.7%, period 2: 50.7%, 95%CI 48.4%-53.0%). Generalized estimating equation models indicated that key factors of greater odds of adherence included being female, older age, having higher income, residing in England, living with vulnerable individuals and perceived high risk of COVID-19. Conclusions Targeted messages to different demographic groups may enhance adherence to health-protective behaviours, which is paramount for the control of airborne respiratory diseases. Protocol and analysis plan Registration The analysis plan was pre-registered, and it is available at https://osf.io/6tnc9/.

Background Novel nicotine delivery devices (NNDDs) are a safer alternative to combustible tobacco smoking. Understanding what factors can facilitate people who smoke to use NNDDs can inform intervention design and public health messaging. This study aims to explore the facilitators and barriers to NNDD use from the perspective of smokers without prior use, after trialling two NNDDs. Method UK adults who smoke combustible cigarettes (n = 11) were recruited from a larger quantitative study after trialling two NNDDs, an electronic cigarette and a heated tobacco product (order randomly allocated). Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed and thematically analysed, using the COM-B model of behaviour and NVivo12 pro software. Results Five main themes were identified: health knowledge, availability of and accessibility to NNDD products, cost, social acceptance, and NNDD use experience. There was curiosity and interest in the uptake and use of NNDDs, but the absence of centralised product information was identified as a barrier. Other themes were related to the design and functionality of the NNDD products. For example, the e-cigarette with its low maintenance was seen as easier to use than the heated tobacco product, which offered too short a single use duration and was described as ‘cumbersome’. Throat discomfort and high anticipated cost were among additional barriers identified for both product types. Conclusion This study highlights the need for reliable objective information on the health effects of NNDDs compared with combustible cigarettes, which could facilitate their regular use. Product adjustment such as single use duration alignment with combustible cigarette smoking duration may encourage uptake. Interventions offering opportunity for experience of NNDD use and knowledge dissemination of NNDDs could increase motivation to adopt harm reducing behaviours as demonstrated in this study.

Aims To estimate the associations between regular exposure to smoking by other people and motivation and attempts to quit among current smokers. To examine whether socio-demographic and other factors moderate these associations. Design A repeat nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Data were collected monthly between November 2014 and February 2019. Setting England. Participants Current smokers ≥16 years of age from the Smoking Toolkit Study (n = 15 136). Measurements Participants were asked whether other people regularly smoke in their presence, how motivated they were to quit and whether they had made a quit attempt in the past year. Moderators assessed were occupation-based social grade, housing tenure, urges to smoke, high-risk alcohol consumption, and disability. Adjusted analyses included moderators, socio-demographic (age/sex/ethnicity/sexual orientation/marital status/children in household) and seasonal (quarter/year) confounders. Findings Current smokers who were regularly exposed to other people smoking in their presence were less likely to be highly motivated to quit (OR = 0.88 [95% CI 0.80-0.97]), but were no less likely to have made a quit attempt in the past year (OR 1.04 [0.97-1.13], Bayes Factor (BF) = 0.05). The inverse relationship between regular smoking exposure and motivation to quit was moderated by urges to smoke, such that exposure was only associated with a reduction in motivation among those without strong urges to smoke (OR 0.83 [0.75-0.93] versus OR 1.04 [0.86-1.26]; P = 0.048). None of the other factors significantly moderated the association with motivation to quit, and none moderated the relationship between regular smoking exposure and quit attempts. All non-significant interactions, except social grade (BF = 1.44) with quit attempts, had Bayes Factors that supported the hypothesis of no moderation (BF range: 0.12-0.21). Conclusions Among current smokers in England, regular exposure to other smokers appears to be associated with lower motivation to quit in people without strong urges to smoke, yet there appears to be no association with quit attempts in the previous year. Social grade, housing tenure, high-risk alcohol consumption and disability do not moderate these associations.

Background and aims The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has called for research into tobacco harm reduction across ethnicities, genders and socio-economic status. Although there is increasing research focused on the latter two, relatively few studies have considered ethnic variations. Therefore this study aimed to assess (i) the association between ethnicity and use of e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for temporary abstinence and cutting down, and (ii) trends in prevalence of these over time. Design Repeated cross-sectional household survey. Setting England. Participants Between April 2013 and September 2019, data were collected on 24 114 smokers, 16+ of age, taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study (STS). Measurements Ethnicity coding included: White, mixed/multiple ethnic group, Asian, Black and Arab/other ethnic group. Smokers reported whether they were currently using e-cigarettes and/or NRT for cutting down or during periods of temporary abstinence. Findings Odds of e-cigarette use for cutting down and temporary abstinence were significantly lower among those of Asian ethnicity (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.66-0.93) and Arab/other ethnicity (OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.40-0.83) compared with White ethnicity. Those of mixed/multiple ethnicity had higher odds for NRT us (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.04-1.94) compared with those of White ethnicity. Trend analysis indicated that for White ethnicity, e-cigarette use by smokers for cutting down and temporary abstinence followed an 'inverse S' shaped cubic curve indicating an overall rise, whereas NRT use followed an 'S' shaped cubic curve, indicating an overall decline. For mixed/multiple ethnicity a similar trend was found for NRT use only, with other ethnicities showing no statistically significant trends (suggesting relative stability over time). Conclusions In England, e-cigarette use by smokers for cutting down and temporary abstinence is less common among Asian and Arab/other ethnicity smokers compared with White smokers. Smokers of mixed/multiple ethnicity are the most likely to be using NRT compared with other ethnic groups for cutting down and temporary abstinence. E-cigarette use by smokers for cutting down and temporary abstinence has increased over time among White smokers, whereas prevalence in other ethnic groups has remained stable.

Introduction To examine changes in drinking patterns and to assess factors associated with reported increases in frequency of drinking, units consumed and frequency of heavy episodic drinking (HED) during the UK lockdown. Methods Online cross‐sectional survey of 2777 self‐selected UK adults. Results Thirty percent of participants reported drinking more frequently in lockdown, 16% reported drinking more units per drinking occasion and 14% reported more frequent HED. For men and women, increased frequency of drinking was associated with being less likely to believe alcohol drinking would lead to greater chance of catching COVID‐19 (men: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98, 1.00; women: OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.99, 1.00) and deterioration in psychological wellbeing (OR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04, 1.54; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.51); increased unit consumption was associated with deterioration in financial situation (OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21, 1.86; OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.05, 1.64) and physical health (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.67; OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.31, 2.10). Finally, increases in the frequency of HED were associated with deterioration in psychological wellbeing (OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.25, 2.18; OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.17, 1.82) and being furloughed (OR = 3.25, 95% CI = 1.80, 5.86; OR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.19, 3.56). Other gender differences were detected, for example, living with children was associated with an increase in units consumed (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.09, 2.73) and the frequency of HED (OR = 2.40, 95% CI = 1.44, 3.99) for men, but not women. Discussion and Conclusions In this self‐selected UK sample, a significant proportion of individuals reported drinking more frequently in lockdown, drinking more units per drinking occasion and more frequent HED. There were consistent predictors of increased consumption across men and women, but other gender differences were detected. This study identifies groups that may require targeted support in future lockdowns.

AIMS: To establish the number of smokers in England who would be targeted by increasing the age of sale of cigarettes from 18 to 21 years and to assess the smoking and socio-demographic profile of those smokers. DESIGN AND SETTING: Nationally representative cross-sectional survey of adults in England conducted between January 2009 and July 2019. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 219 720 adults. MEASUREMENTS: All participants reported their current smoking status and socio-demographic characteristics (i.e. age, gender, home ownership, social grade and ethnicity). Smokers reported motivation to quit, urges to smoke and the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HIS). Weighted prevalence statistics were calculated. Multinomial regression and logistic regression were used to assess differences in smoking characteristics among smokers and socio-demographic characteristics relative to non-smokers. FINDINGS: The prevalence of smoking between January 2009 and July 2019 was highest among those aged 21-30. In 2019, 15.6% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 12.8-18.8%] of 18-20-year-olds reported smoking, which is estimated to represent 364 000 individuals in England. Relative to smokers aged 18-20, older smokers (aged 21+) had a higher motivation to quit smoking [odds ratios (ORs) = 1.40-1.45 range] and higher nicotine dependency as measured by urges to smoke (ORs = 1.06-1.24 range) and HSI (ORs = 1.05-2.85 range). Compared with non-smokers aged 18-20, smokers in this age group had lower odds of being female (OR = 0.89) and higher odds of being of white ethnicity (OR = 2.78) and from social grades C1-E (lower social grades) compared with AB (higher social grades) (OR = 1.19-1.83 range). CONCLUSION: Increasing the age of sale of cigarettes to 21 years in England would currently target approximately 364 000 lower dependent smokers from more disadvantaged backgrounds aged 18-20, who have less motivation to quit.

This study examined the prevalence of non-smoking norms in England and their associations with motivation to stop smoking, quit attempts, and cessation. Data were from a representative cross-sectional survey of 1,521 adults (301 combustible tobacco smokers). Descriptive non-smoking norms were endorsed, with just 16% of adults (12% of smokers) believing smoking was uncommon. Injunctive non-smoking norms were more prevalent, with 60–77% of adults (17–48% of smokers) viewing smoking as something of which others disapproved. Personal non-smoking norms were also prevalent among all adults (73% indicated they would prefer to live with a non-smoker) but not smokers (69% had no preference). Smokers who endorsed stronger descriptive non-smoking norms had increased odds of reporting high motivation to stop smoking (ORadj = 1.63, 95%CI 1.06–2.52). Female (but not male) past-year smokers who endorsed stronger injunctive (ORadj = 2.19, 95%CI 1.41–3.42) and personal (ORadj = 1.90, 95%CI 1.29–2.82) non-smoking norms had increased odds of having made a past-year quit attempt. In conclusion, perceived descriptive non-smoking norms are not held by the majority of adults in England. Injunctive and personal non-smoking norms are prevalent among all adults but lower among smokers. There is some evidence that smokers – in particular, women – who endorse stronger non-smoking norms are more likely to be motivated to stop smoking and to make a quit attempt.

Objective To assess the long-term impact of the increase in age-of-sale of cigarettes from 16 to 18 in England in October 2007. Methods Data were collected between November 2006 and September 2018 on 252,601 participants taking part in a nationally representative survey of adults aged 16+ in England, the Smoking Toolkit Study (STS). We assessed the impact of the introduction of the increase in age-of-sale on prevalence of ever smoking, current smoking, and quit attempts, among 16–17 year olds compared with 18–24 year olds. Results Following the increase in age-of-sale, there was a declining trend in ever smoking that was greater among 16–17 year olds than 18–24 year olds (OR 0.990 versus OR 0.993; p = 0.019). Data on current smoking were insensitive to detect a difference between the age groups in a step-level change or change in trend following the increase in age-of-sale (Bayes factors (BFs) 0.75 and 2.10). Data on quit attempts were also insensitive to detect a change in trend (BF 0.71), and despite a greater step-level decline among those aged 16–17 (OR 0.311 versus OR 0.547, p = 0.025), quit attempts remained higher among those aged 16–17. Secondary analysis indicated that post-policy change, trends in current and ever smoking were linear for 16–17 year olds but quadratic for 18–24 year olds (slowing decline). Conclusion There is some evidence from an assessment of long-term trends in the Smoking Toolkit Study that the increase in legal age-of-sale of cigarettes in England was associated with a greater long-term decline in ever smoking among those aged 16–17 compared with those aged 18–24.

IntroductionThis study assessed whether initiating e-cigarette use increases the uptake of cigarette smoking in US adolescents compared with behavioural and synthetic controls.MethodsData come from 78 265 adolescents in the National Youth Tobacco Survey (2014–2017) of whom 38 630 provided information about the first tobacco product they had used in 2014/15. Ever, past 30 day and established (30 day use and 100+ lifetime cigarettes) cigarette smoking was compared in adolescents who first used an e-cigarette (exposure group), a non-cigarette combustible (CT) or other non-combustible tobacco (NT) product (behavioural controls), and propensity score matched adolescents without initial e-cigarette use (synthetic controls).ResultsRelative to behavioural controls, adolescents who tried e-cigarettes first were less likely to have ever smoked cigarettes (26% vs CT (42.4%; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.57), or NT initiators (52.7%; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.39)), to be past 30 day (6% vs CT (11.9%; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.62), or NT initiators (20.0%; OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.35)) or be established cigarette smokers (0.7% vs CT (3.9%; OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.30), or NT initiators (8.4%; OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.13)). E-cigarette initiators were also less likely than synthetic controls (without initial e-cigarette use) to have ever smoked cigarettes (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.93), be past 30 day (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.91) or be established cigarette smokers (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.51).ConclusionLess than 1% of US adolescents who use e-cigarettes first were established cigarette smokers. They were less likely to be smokers than adolescents who tried other combustible or non-combustible tobacco products first and propensity score matched adolescents without initial e-cigarette use.

Introduction To gain a better understanding of the complex and independent associations between different measures of socioeconomic position (SEP) and smoking in England. Aims and Methods Between March 2013 and January 2019 data were collected from 120 496 adults aged 16+ in England taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study. Of these, 18.04% (n = 21 720) were current smokers. Six indicators of SEP were measured: social grade, employment status, educational qualifications, home and car ownership and income. Models were constructed using ridge regression to assess the contribution of each measure of SEP, taking account of high collinearity. Results The strongest predictor of smoking status was housing tenure. Those who did not own their own home had twice the odds of smoking compared with homeowners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.01). Social grade, educational qualification, and income were also good predictors. Those in social grades C1 (OR = 1.04), C2 (OR = 1.29), D (OR = 1.39), and E (OR = 1.78) had higher odds of smoking than those in social grade AB. Similarly, those with A-level/equivalent (OR = 1.15), GCSE/vocational (OR = 1.48), other/still studying (OR = 1.12), and no post-16 qualifications (OR = 1.48) had higher odds of smoking than those with university qualifications, as did those who earned in the lowest (OR = 1.23), third (OR = 1.18), and second quartiles (OR = 1.06) compared with those earning in the highest. Associations between smoking and employment (OR = 1.03) and car ownership (OR = 1.05) were much smaller. Conclusions Of a variety of socioeconomic measures, housing tenure appears to be the strongest independent predictor of smoking in England, followed by social grade, educational qualifications, and income. Employment status and car ownership have the lowest predictive power. Implications This study used ridge regression, a technique which takes into account high collinearity between variables, to gain a better understanding of the independent associations between different measures of SEP and smoking in England. The findings provide guidance as to which SEP measures one could use when trying to identifying individuals most at risk from smoking, with housing tenure identified as the strongest independent predictor.

Introduction E-cigarettes (ECs) may benefit smokers with mental health conditions who are more likely to smoke, and smoke more heavily, than those without mental health conditions. This could be undermined if harm misperceptions in this group are high as is the case in the general population. This study aimed to assess EC harm perceptions relative to cigarettes as a function of mental health status and a variety of characteristics. Methods Data were collected from 6531 current smokers in 2016/2017 in household surveys of representative samples of adults. The associations of mental health status (self-reported mental health condition and past year treatment), smoking and EC use characteristics, and characteristics relating to use of potential information sources with harm perceptions of ECs relative to cigarettes (measured by correct response “less harmful” vs. wrong responses “more harmful,” “equally harmful,” “don’t know”) were analyzed with logistic regression. Results A similar proportion of smokers without mental health conditions (61.5%, 95% CI 60.1–62.9) and with mental health conditions (both with [61.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.7–63.8] and without past year treatment [61.5%, 95% CI 58.1–64.7]) held inaccurate EC harm perceptions (all P > 0.05). Being female, nonwhite, aged 25–34 compared with 16–24, from lower social grades (C2, D, and E), not having post-16 qualifications, no EC experience, a daily smoker, unmotivated to quit Conclusions The majority of smokers in England have inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs regardless of mental health status. Implications This study is the first to use a nationally representative sample in order to investigate whether smokers with and without mental health conditions differ with regard to harm perceptions of ECs. Findings show that the majority of smokers in England hold inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs, and this does not differ as a function of mental health status. A number of characteristics associated with disadvantaged groups were significantly associated with inaccurate harm perceptions. These findings highlight the need to improve awareness and understanding among disadvantaged groups regarding the relative harms of ECs compared with tobacco.

Background: It is unclear whether smoking increases the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation. We first examined the association of smoking status with hospitalisation for COVID-19 compared with hospitalisation for other respiratory viral infections a year previous. Second, we examined the concordance between smoking status recorded on the electronic health record (EHR) and the contemporaneous medical notes. Methods: This case-control study enrolled adult patients (446 cases and 211 controls) at a single National Health Service trust in London, UK. The outcome variable was type of hospitalisation (COVID-19 vs. another respiratory virus a year previous). The exposure variable was smoking status (never/former/current smoker). Logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic position and comorbidities were performed. The study protocol and analyses were pre-registered in April 2020 on the Open Science Framework. Results: Current smokers had lower odds of being hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous (ORadj=0.55, 95% CI=0.31-0.96, p=.04). There was no significant association among former smokers (ORadj=1.08, 95% CI=0.72-1.65, p=.70). Smoking status recorded on the EHR (compared with the contemporaneous medical notes) was incorrectly recorded for 168 (79.6%) controls (χ2(3)=256.5, p=2(3)=34.2, p= Conclusions: In a single UK hospital trust, current smokers had reduced odds of being hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with other respiratory viruses a year previous, although it is unclear whether this association is causal. Targeted post-discharge recording of smoking status may account for the greater EHR-medical notes concordance observed in cases compared with controls.

Background Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release aerosol, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e‐cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Companies who make HTPs claim they produce fewer harmful chemicals than conventional cigarettes. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using HTPs, so clinicians need to know whether they are effective for this purpose and relatively safe. Also, to regulate HTPs appropriately, policymakers should understand their impact on health and on cigarette smoking prevalence. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HTPs for smoking cessation and the impact of HTPs on smoking prevalence. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and six other databases for relevant records to January 2021, together with reference‐checking and contact with study authors and relevant groups. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people who smoked cigarettes were randomised to switch to exclusive HTP use or a control condition. Eligible outcomes were smoking cessation, adverse events, and selected biomarkers. RCTs conducted in clinic or in an ambulatory setting were deemed eligible when assessing safety, including those randomising participants to exclusively use HTPs, smoke cigarettes, or attempt abstinence from all tobacco. Time‐series studies were also eligible for inclusion if they examined the population‐level impact of heated tobacco on smoking prevalence or cigarette sales as an indirect measure. Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking at the longest follow‐up point available, adverse events, serious adverse events, and changes in smoking prevalence or cigarette sales. Other outcomes included biomarkers of harm and exposure to toxicants/carcinogens (e.g. NNAL and carboxyhaemoglobin (COHb)). We used a random‐effects Mantel‐Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences on the log‐transformed scale (LMD) with 95% CIs. We pooled data across studies using meta‐analysis where possible. Main results We included 13 completed studies, of which 11 were RCTs assessing safety (2666 participants) and two were time‐series studies. We judged eight RCTs to be at unclear risk of bias and three at high risk. All RCTs were funded by tobacco companies. Median length of follow‐up was 13 weeks. No studies reported smoking cessation outcomes. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events between smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or continue smoking cigarettes, limited by imprecision and risk of bias (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.15; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 1713 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether risk of serious adverse events differed between groups due to very serious imprecision and risk of bias (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.94; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1472 participants). There was moderate‐certainty evidence for lower NNAL and COHb at follow‐up in heated tobacco than cigarette smoking groups, limited by risk of bias (NNAL: LMD −0.81, 95% CI −1.07 to −0.55; I2 = 92%; 10 studies, 1959 participants; COHb: LMD −0.74, 95% CI −0.92 to −0.52; I2 = 96%; 9 studies, 1807 participants). Evidence for additional biomarkers of exposure are reported in the main body of the review. There was insufficient evidence for a difference in risk of adverse events in smokers randomised to switch to heated tobacco or attempt abstinence from all tobacco, limited by risk of bias and imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.46; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 237 participants). Five studies reported that no serious adverse events occurred in either group (533 participants). There was moderate‐certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that urine concentrations of NNAL at follow‐up were higher in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group (LMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.66; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 382 participants). In addition, there was very low‐certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision, for higher COHb in the heated tobacco use compared with abstinence group for intention‐to‐treat analyses (LMD 0.69, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.31; 3 studies, 212 participants), but lower COHb in per‐protocol analyses (LMD −0.32, 95% CI −1.04 to 0.39; 2 studies, 170 participants). Evidence concerning additional biomarkers is reported in the main body of the review. Data from two time‐series studies showed that the rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated following the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan. This evidence was of very low‐certainty as there was risk of bias, including possible confounding, and cigarette sales are an indirect measure of smoking prevalence. Authors' conclusions No studies reported on cigarette smoking cessation, so the effectiveness of heated tobacco for this purpose remains uncertain. There was insufficient evidence for differences in risk of adverse or serious adverse events between people randomised to switch to heated tobacco, smoke cigarettes, or attempt tobacco abstinence in the short‐term. There was moderate‐certainty evidence that heated tobacco users have lower exposure to toxicants/carcinogens than cigarette smokers and very low‐ to moderate‐certainty evidence of higher exposure than those attempting abstinence from all tobacco. Independently funded research on the effectiveness and safety of HTPs is needed. The rate of decline in cigarette sales accelerated after the introduction of heated tobacco to market in Japan but, as data were observational, it is possible other factors caused these changes. Moreover, falls in cigarette sales may not translate to declining smoking prevalence, and changes in Japan may not generalise elsewhere. To clarify the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking prevalence, there is a need for time‐series studies that examine this association., Plain language summary Do heated tobacco products help people to quit smoking, are they safe for this purpose, and have they led to falls in smoking rates? Key messages Heated tobacco probably exposes people to fewer toxins than cigarettes, but possibly more than not using any tobacco. Falls in cigarette sales appeared to speed up following the launch of heated tobacco in Japan, but we are uncertain whether this is caused by people switching from cigarettes to heated tobacco. We need more independently funded research into whether heated tobacco helps people stop smoking, whether it results in unwanted effects, and the impact of rising heated tobacco use on smoking rates. What are heated tobacco products? Heated tobacco products are designed to heat tobacco to a high enough temperature to release vapour, without burning it or producing smoke. They differ from e‐cigarettes because they heat tobacco leaf/sheet rather than a liquid. Many of the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke are created by burning tobacco. So heating not burning tobacco could reduce the amount of chemicals a user ingests. Some people report stopping smoking cigarettes entirely by switching to using heated tobacco. Why we did this Cochrane Review Because cigarette smoking is addictive, many people find it difficult to stop despite the harm it causes. We aimed to find out whether trying to switch to heated tobacco helps people stop smoking cigarettes, and whether it results in unwanted effects. We also wanted to find out whether rising heated tobacco use has affected smoking rates or cigarette sales. What did we do? We looked for studies that reported on the use of heated tobacco for stopping smoking, and on unwanted effects and toxin exposure in people asked to use heated tobacco. Here we only included randomised controlled trials, where treatments were given to people at random. This type of study is considered the most reliable way of determining if a treatment works. Finally, we searched for studies looking at changes in smoking rates and cigarette sales following the launch of heated tobacco to market. We included studies published up to January 2021. What we found Our search found 13 relevant studies. No studies reported whether heated tobacco helps people stop smoking cigarettes. Eleven trials, all funded by tobacco companies and with 2666 adult smokers, compared unwanted effects and toxin levels in people randomly assigned to use heated tobacco or to continue smoking cigarettes or abstain from tobacco use. Two studies looked at how trends in cigarette sales changed following the launch of heated tobacco in Japan. What are the results of our review? We do not know whether using heated tobacco helps people to stop smoking cigarettes (no studies measured this). We are uncertain whether the chances of getting unwanted symptoms from being asked to use heated tobacco are different compared with cigarettes (6 studies, 1713 participants) or no tobacco (2 studies, 237 participants). Serious unwanted symptoms in the short time period studied (average 13 weeks) were rare in all groups, which means we are uncertain about any differences. Toxin levels were probably lower in people using heated tobacco than those smoking cigarettes (10 studies, 1959 participants), but may be higher than in people not using any tobacco products (5 studies, 382 participants). The launch of heated tobacco products in Japan may have caused the decline in cigarette sales to speed up over time (two studies), but it is unclear whether the fall in the percentage of people who smoke also sped up because no studies looked at this. How reliable are these results? Results are based on data from a small number of studies, most of which were funded by tobacco companies. Results on unwanted effects are likely to change as more evidence becomes available. However, we are moderately confident that levels of measured toxins are lower in people using heated tobacco than smoking cigarettes, but less confident that levels were higher than in people not using any tobacco. We are also less confident that the launch of heated tobacco caused the fall in cigarette sales to speed up, as results came from a single country.

This study investigated UK adults’ changes in cigarette smoking and vaping during the COVID-19 pandemic and factors associated with any changes. Data were from an online longitudinal study. A self-selected sample (n = 332) of 228 smokers and 155 vapers (51 participants were both smokers and vapers) completed 5 surveys between April 2020 and June 2021. Participants self-reported data on sociodemographics, COVID-19-related, and smoking/vaping characteristics. During the 12 months of observations, among smokers, 45% self-reported a quit attempt (27.5% due to COVID-19-related reasons) since the onset of COVID-19 pandemic and the quit rate was 17.5%. At 12 months, 35.1% of continuing smokers (n = 174) reported smoking less and 37.9% the same, while 27.0% reported an increase in the number of cigarettes smoked/day. Among vapers, 25.0% self-reported a quit attempt (16.1% due to COVID-19-related reasons) and the quit rate was 18.1%. At 12 months, 47.7% of continuing vapers (n = 109) reported no change in the frequency of vaping/hour, while a similar proportion reported vaping less (27.5%) and more (24.8%). Motivation to quit smoking and being younger were associated with making a smoking quit attempt and smoking cessation. Being a cigarette smoker was associated with vaping cessation. Among a self-selected sample, COVID-19 stimulated more interest in reducing or quitting cigarette smoking than vaping.

Introduction We evaluated how effective an advertising campaign that was piloted by Cancer Research UK in January/February 2018 was at promoting quit attempts by increasing awareness of the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking. Methods Adults (≥16 years, n = 2217) living in Greater Manchester (campaign region), Yorkshire & Humber and the North East of England (control regions) completed cross-sectional surveys immediately before and after the campaign period. Surveys measured socio-demographics, perceptions and use of e-cigarettes, and motivation and attempts to quit smoking. We tested interactions between time (pre, post) and region (campaign, control). Results 36.7% (95% CI 33.0%–40.6%) of those in the intervention region recognized the campaign. In the general population, interactions were nonsignificant for all outcomes except for perception of e-cigarettes as effective cessation aids, with smaller increases from pre- to post-campaign in the campaign (49.9% to 54.0%) compared with the control region (40.5% to 55.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.66, 95% CI .45–0.98). Among smokers, motivation to quit increased in the intervention region (44.0% to 48.0%) but decreased in the control region (40.5% to 21.5%; OR = 2.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25–7.16), with no other significant differences between regions over time. Bayes factors confirmed that nonsignificant results were inconclusive. Conclusions Compared with the control region, the campaign was associated with an increase in smokers’ motivation to quit but a smaller increase in adults’ perception of e-cigarettes as an effective cessation aid. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the campaign affected other outcomes. Implications Past extended mass media tobacco control campaigns have been shown to change public attitudes towards smoking, improve motivation to quit smoking, and reduce smoking prevalence. Much less is known about shorter, targeted campaigns. Here we show that using mass media to communicate accurate information about the relative harms of e-cigarettes compared with smoking may be an effective strategy in increasing smokers’ motivation to quit. Moreover, even when only run for a month, such campaigns can reach a large proportion of the targeted population. Further research is needed to evaluate effects on quit attempts and success.

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of announcement of tax increases on factory-made (FM) and roll-your own (RYO) cigarettes in England.Autoregressive integrated moving average with exogeneous input (ARIMAX) time-series modelling in England, UK. Data were aggregated monthly on 274 890 participants between 2007 and 2019 taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study (STS).The association of sustained step level changes for tax rises for FM cigarettes and temporary pulse effects for tax rises for RYO cigarettes with smoking, quit attempt and quit success prevalence as well as per-capita self-reported cigarette consumption and cost per cigarette was assessed.A 10% rise in tax on RYO cigarettes was associated with a temporary 21.1% decline [95% confidence interval (CI) = -30.4 to -10.7] in smoking prevalence, and 20.7% decline (95% CI = -32.4 to -7.0) in per-capita self-reported cigarette consumption; while a 3% rise of tax on RYO cigarettes was associated with a temporary 20.7% decline (95% CI = -33.3 to -5.8) in the amount paid per RYO cigarette. For tax increases on FM cigarettes, a 5% above inflation tax rise was associated with a step-level increase of 33.1% (95% CI = 18.4-49.5) in quit success rates. However, some of the findings were sensitive to model specification and temporally specific.The announcements of tax increases for cigarettes in England between 2010 and 2019 were inconsistently associated with temporary reductions in smoking prevalence, per-capita self-reported cigarette consumption and improved quit success. Paradoxically, reductions in the cost for roll-your-own cigarettes were also found. The results were not robust in all sensitivity analyses.

To assess how changes in the prevalence of e-cigarette use among young adults have been associated with changes in the uptake of smoking in England between 2007 and 2018.Time-series analysis of population trends with autoregressive integrated moving average with exogeneous input (ARIMAX models).England.Data were aggregated quarterly on young adults aged 16-24 years (n = 37 105) taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study.In the primary analysis, prevalence of e-cigarette use was used to predict prevalence of ever regular smoking among those aged 16-24. Sensitivity analyses stratified the sample into those aged 16-17 and 18-24. Bayes' factors and robustness regions were calculated for non-significant findings [effect size beta coefficient (B) = 3.1].There was evidence for no association between the prevalence of e-cigarette use and ever regular smoking among those aged 16-24 [B = -0.015, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.046 to 0.016; P = 0.341; Bayes factor (BF) = 0.002]. Evidence for no association was also found in the stratified analysis among those aged 16-17 (B = 0.070, 95% CI -0.014 to 0.155, P = 0.102; BF = 0.015) and 18-24 (B = -0.021, 95% CI -0.053 to 0.011; P = 0.205; BF = 0.003). These findings were able to rule out percentage point increases or decreases in ever regular smoking prevalence greater than 0.31% or less than -0.03% for 16-17-year-olds and 0.01 or -0.08% for 18-24-year-olds for every 1%-point increase in e-cigarette prevalence.Prevalence of e-cigarette use among the youth population in England does not appear to be associated with substantial increases or decreases in the prevalence of smoking uptake. Small associations cannot be ruled out.

To measure whether the prevalence of use and real-world effectiveness of different smoking cessation aids has changed in England since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Representative monthly cross-sectional surveys, January 2015-June 2021.England.A total of 7300 adults (≥18 y) who had smoked within the previous 12 months and had made ≥1 quit attempt during that period.The independent variable was the timing of the COVID-19 pandemic (pre-pandemic [January 2015-February 2020] vs pandemic [April 2020-June 2021]). We analysed (i) the association between the pandemic period and self-reported use (vs non-use) during the most recent quit attempt of: prescription medication (nicotine replacement therapy [NRT]/varenicline/bupropion), NRT bought over-the-counter, e-cigarettes, traditional behavioural support and traditional remote support (telephone support/written self-help materials/websites) and (ii) the interaction between the pandemic period and use of these cessation aids on self-reported abstinence from quit date to survey. Covariates included age, sex, social grade, level of cigarette addiction and characteristics related to the quit attempt.After adjustment for secular trends, there was a significant increase from the pre-pandemic to pandemic period in the prevalence of use of traditional remote support by past-year smokers in a quit attempt (OR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.42-3.33); specifically telephone support (OR = 7.16; 95% CI, 2.19-23.45) and websites (OR = 2.39; 95% CI, 1.41-4.08). There was also an increase in the prevalence of use of prescription medication (OR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-2.00); specifically varenicline (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.09-2.52). There were no significant changes in prevalence of use of other cessation aids after adjustment for secular trends. People who reported using prescription medication (OR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.09-1.84) and e-cigarettes (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.62-2.16) had greater odds of reporting abstinence than people who did not. There were no significant interactions between the pandemic period and use of any cessation aid on abstinence, after adjustment for covariates and use of the other aids, although data were insensitive to distinguish no change from meaningful modest (OR = 1.34) effects (Bayes factors 0.72-1.98).In England, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with an increase in use of remote support for smoking cessation and varenicline by smokers in a quit attempt up to June 2021. The data were inconclusive regarding an association between the pandemic and changes in the real-world effectiveness of popular smoking cessation aids.

COVID-19-related restrictions impacted weight and weight-related factors during the initial months of the pandemic. However, longitudinal analyses are scarce. An online, longitudinal study was conducted among self-selected UK adults (n = 1818), involving three surveys (May–June, August–September, November–December 2020), covering anthropometric, sociodemographic, COVID-19-related and behavioural measures. Data were analysed using generalised estimating equations. Self-reported average weight/body mass index (BMI) significantly increased between the May–June period and the August–September period (74.95 to 75.33 kg/26.22 kg/m2 to 26.36kg/m2, p &lt, 0.001, respectively), and then significantly decreased to November–December (to 75.06 kg/26.27 kg/m2, p &lt, 0.01), comparable to May–June levels (p = 0.274/0.204). However, there was great interindividual variation, 37.0%/26.7% increased (average 3.64 kg (95% confidence interval: 3.32, 3.97)/1.64 kg/m2 (1.49, 1.79)), and 34.5%/26.3% decreased (average 3.59 kg (3.34, 3.85)/1.53 kg/m2 (1.42, 1.63)) weight/BMI between May–June and November–December. Weight/BMI increase was significantly negatively associated with initial BMI, and positively associated with monthly high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) snacks intake and alcohol consumption, and for BMI only, older age. Associations were time-varying, lower initial BMI, higher HFSS snacks intake and high-risk alcohol consumption were associated with maintaining weight/BMI increases between August–September and November–December. The average weight/BMI of UK adults fluctuated between May–June and November–December 2020. However, the substantial interindividual variation in weight/BMI trajectories indicates long-term health impacts from the pandemic, associated with food and alcohol consumption.

This study examined use trends of e-cigarette devices types, heated tobacco products (HTPs) and e-liquid nicotine concentrations in England from 2016 to 2020. Data were from a representative repeat cross-sectional survey of adults aged 16 or older. Bayesian logistic regression was used to estimate proportions and 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Of 75,355 participants, 5.3% (weighted = 5.5%) were currently using e-cigarettes or HTPs, with the majority (98.7%) using e-cigarettes. Among e-cigarette users, 53.7% (CrI 52.0–55.1%) used tank devices, 23.7% (22.4–25.1%) mods, 17.3% (16.1–18.4%) pods, and 5.4% (4.7–6.2%) disposables. Tanks were the most widely used device type throughout 2016–2020. Mods were second until 2020, when pods overtook them. Among all e-cigarette/HTP users, prevalence of HTP use remains rare (3.4% in 2016 versus 4.2% in 2020), whereas JUUL use has risen from 3.4% in 2018 to 11.8% in 2020. Across all years, nicotine concentrations of ≤ 6 mg/ml were most widely (41.0%; 39.4–42.4%) and ≥ 20 mg/ml least widely used (4.1%; 3.4–4.9%). Among e-cigarette/HTP users, ex-smokers were more likely than current smokers to use mod and tank e-cigarettes, but less likely to use pods, disposables, JUUL and HTPs. In conclusion, despite growing popularity of pods and HTPs worldwide, refillable tank e-cigarettes remain the most widely used device type in England.

Background To help implement behavior change interventions (BCIs) it is important to be able to characterize their key components and determine their effectiveness. Purpose This study assessed and compared the components of BCIs in terms of intervention functions identified using the Behaviour Change Wheel Framework (BCW) and in terms of their specific behavior change techniques (BCTs) identified using the BCT TaxonomyV1, across six behavioral domains and the association of these with cost-effectiveness. Methods BCIs in 251 studies targeting smoking, diet, exercise, sexual health, alcohol and multiple health behaviors, were specified in terms of their intervention functions and their BCTs, grouped into 16 categories. Associations with cost-effectiveness measured in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) upper and lower estimates were determined using regression analysis. Results The most prevalent functions were increasing knowledge through education (72.1%) and imparting skills through training (74.9%). The most prevalent BCT groupings were shaping knowledge (86.5%), changing behavioral antecedents (53.0%), supporting self-regulation (47.7%), and providing social support (44.6%). Intervention functions associated with better cost-effectiveness were those based on training (βlow = −15044.3; p = .002), persuasion (βlow = −19384.9; p = .001; βupp = −25947.6; p < .001) and restriction (βupp = −32286.1; p = .019), and with lower cost-effectiveness were those based on environmental restructuring (β = 15023.9low; p = .033). BCT groupings associated with better cost-effectiveness were goals and planning (βlow = −8537.3; p = .019 and βupp = −12416.9; p = .037) and comparison of behavior (βlow = −13561.9, p = .047 and βupp = −30650.2; p = .006). Those associated with lower cost-effectiveness were natural consequences (βlow = 7729.4; p = .033) and reward and threat (βlow = 20106.7; p = .004). Conclusions BCIs that focused on training, persuasion and restriction may be more cost-effective, as may those that encourage goal setting and comparison of behaviors with others.

Background: Companion animals may be a positive presence for their owners during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the welfare of a companion animal is strongly influenced by the behaviour of their owners, as well as their physical and social environment. We aimed to investigate the reported changes in companion animal welfare and behaviour and to examine the association between these changes and companion animal owners’ mental health. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of UK residents over 18 years of age was conducted between April and June 2020 (n = 5926). The questionnaire included validated, bespoke items measuring outcomes related to mental health, human-animal bonds and reported changes in animal welfare and behaviour. The final item of the survey invited open-ended free-text responses, allowing participants to describe experiences associated with human-animal relationships during the first UK lockdown phase. Results: Animal owners made up 89.8% of the sample (n = 5323), of whom 67.3% reported changes in their animal’s welfare and behaviour during the first lockdown phase (n = 3583). These reported changes were reduced to a positive (0–7) and negative (0–5) welfare scale, following principal component analysis (PCA) of 17 items. Participants reported more positive changes for cats, whereas more negative changes were reported for dogs. Thematic analysis identified three main themes relating to the positive and negative impact on companion animals of the Covid-19 pandemic. Generalised linear models indicated that companion animal owners with poorer mental health scores pre-lockdown reported fewer negative changes in animal welfare and behaviour. However, companion animal owners with poorer mental health scores since lockdown reported more changes, both positive and negative, in animal welfare and behaviour. Conclusion: Our findings extend previous insights into perceived welfare and behaviour changes on a very limited range of species to a wider a range of companion animals. Owner mental health status has a clear, albeit small, effect on companion animal welfare and behaviour.

Background/Aims: The expense associated with using non-combustible nicotine products as an alternative to smoking may deter smoking reduction or cessation. This study aimed to estimate (i) how much adults in England spend each week on smoking and alternative nicotine products and (ii) the potential cost saving that could be achieved by switching from smoking to using an alternative nicotine delivery product. // Design/Setting: Data came from September to November 2018 waves of the Smoking Toolkit Study, a series of national household surveys of the adult population in England. // Participants: A total of 859 adults (≥16 years) who reported current smoking or current use of an alternative nicotine product. // Measurements: Participants reported their average weekly expenditure on smoking and alternative nicotine products (nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) or e-cigarettes). // Findings: Current smokers who did not use any alternative nicotine delivery products (n=602) reported spending on average £23.09 (95%CI £21.64-24.54) on smoking each week. Ex-smokers who used alternative nicotine products (n=91) reported spending on average £8.59 (95% CI £6.80-10.39) on these products each week; £8.03 (95%CI £6.03-10.03) on e-cigarettes and £10.05 (95%CI £5.62-14.47) on NRT. People who both smoked and used alternative nicotine products (dual users, n=166) spent on average £24.54 (95%CI £21.78- 27.29) on smoking and £7.49 (95%CI £6.00-8.99) on alternative nicotine products each week. Expenditure on smoking was higher among heavier, more addicted smokers and lower among those with routine/manual occupations, non-daily smokers, and roll-your-own tobacco users. Expenditure on ecigarettes was higher among men, users from central and southern vs. northern England, and smokers who had tried to quit in the past year, and lower among current smokers. Expenditure on NRT was lower among roll-your-own tobacco users. // Conclusions: In England, expenditure among e-cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) users is approximately one third of the expenditure of smokers. The average smoker may save an estimated £15 per week by switching completely to e-cigarettes or £13 per week by switching to NRT, although this is likely to differ according to individual usage patterns.

Introduction Understanding the use of cheaper roll-your-own (RYO) cigarettes may have implications for tobacco tax policy. We examined trends in RYO cigarette use in England between 2008 and 2017, and characterized users’ sociodemographic and smoking profiles. Methods We used data from 211 469 respondents to a survey representative of the adult (≥16 years) population. In current smokers across the entire study period (n = 43 389), we assessed multivariable associations between cigarette type (RYO or factory-made [FM]) and sociodemographic and smoking characteristics. Among current smokers in 2008 and 2017 (n = 7685), we tested interactions between year and cigarette type to assess the stability of each characteristic. Results Between 2008 and 2017, FM cigarette use declined from 15.3% to 9.2% whereas RYO use increased from 6.7% to 8.1%. Greater odds of RYO use were observed among younger, male smokers from lower social grades, who were more addicted and used electronic cigarettes (ORrange = 1.28–1.86, p < .001). Lower odds of RYO use were observed among nondaily smokers, those with high motivation to stop, and higher spending on smoking (ORrange = 0.46–0.89, p ≤ .001). The RYO smoker profile was relatively stable between 2008 and 2017. However, compared with FM use, RYO use increased in younger (p < .001) and female (p = .019) smokers, and there was a relatively smaller decline in the proportion cutting down or trying to quit (p = .004). Conclusion In England, RYO use increased when overall smoking prevalence and FM use decreased. The profile of RYO smokers remained relatively stable, with users typically younger, male, more addicted, deprived, spending less on smoking, and less inclined to quit than FM smokers. Implications This population-based study provides novel insight into recent trends in RYO use in England, providing an up-to-date understanding of the profile of RYO smokers. Without the consistent application of tax across the range of combustible products, smokers who are more dependent are able to capitalize on the lower cost of RYO in order to continue smoking, undermining the potential benefit of taxation on cessation.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has seen repeated government enforced restrictions on movement. This study aimed to evaluate longitudinal trends in physical activity (PA) in a self-selected UK-based sample and identify the key correlates of these trends. Methods From 23 April 2020 to 30 January 2021, measures of PA engagement were collected in a sample of 1,947 UK-based adults. Generalised estimating equations (GEE) explored trends in PA engagement over time, and how sociodemographic, health and contextual factors impacted participant’s attainment of World Health Organization (WHO) recommended levels of PA (constituting muscle strengthening activity (MSA), and moderate or vigorous PA (MVPA)). Results While one in five achieved the recommended levels of PA in the first UK lockdown in April-June 2020 (19.5%, 95%CI: 17.8–21.3%) and a similar proportion in June-July 2020 (17.7%, 95%CI: 16.1–19.5%), this reduced during the period of eased restrictions in August-September 2020 (15.2%, 95%CI: 13.7–16.9%) and the second UK lockdown in November 2020-January 2021 (14.1%, 95%CI: 12.6–15.9%). Similar trends were observed for MSA and MVPA individually. Better quality of life, higher socioeconomic position and pre-COVID-19 PA levels were associated with meeting the WHO recommended levels of PA, while those living with overweight or obesity, a limiting health condition, or isolating showed the inverse associations. Time-specific associations with MSA or MVPA were observed for gender and age. Conclusion Reductions in PA levels throughout the first strict lockdown continued without reversal during the ensuing period. The association of negative change with socioeconomic and health-related indices points towards deepening health inequities during the pandemic.

Introduction Up-to-date monitoring of non-combustible nicotine products (e.g. e-cigarettes, nicotine replacement therapies (NRT), heated tobacco products (HTP); NNP) is important to assess their impact. To date, there is little evidence on the association between ever regular use (defined here as 1 year or more) of NNP and current smoking status. Aims/methods The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence, and sociodemographic, alcohol and smoking status correlates, of ever regular use of NNP in England in 2020. A cross-sectional survey of adults in England was conducted between February and June 2020. Results A total of 8486 adults were surveyed; 94.9% (8055) were complete cases. The weighted prevalence of ever regular NNP use was 5.4% (n = 436; 95% CI 5.0–6.0), of which 82% (n = 360; 95% CI 78.7–85.8) was single and 18% (n = 79; 95% CI 14.8–22) multiple product use. Amongst ever regular NNP users, the prevalence of ever regular NRT, e-cigarette and HTP use was 64.7% (95% CI 60.1–69), 43.4% (95% CI 38.8–48) and 2.5% (95% CI 1.4–4.5), respectively. In adjusted analysis, ever regular NNP use was associated with smoking status, being significantly higher among current (22.3%; adjusted OR (aOR) 34.9, 95% CI 24.0–50.8) and ex-smokers (12.7%, aOR 19.8, 95% CI 11.1–14.4) than among never-smokers (0.6%). More advantaged occupational grade (aOR, 1.27 95% CI 1.02–1.57) and at least hazardous alcohol use (aOR, 1.38 95% CI 1.06–1.78) were associated with greater prevalence of ever regular NNP use. Conclusions Ever regularly using NNP was highest among smokers and ex-smokers and rare among never-smokers. Among people who have ever regularly used NNP, NRT is the most popular.

AimsTo explore i) associations between vaping and self-reported diagnosed/suspected Covid-19; ii) changes in vaping since Covid-19 and factors associated with these changes; iii) whether Covid-19 motivated current or recent ex-vapers to quit.MethodsCross-sectional online survey of 2791 UK adults recruited 30/04/2020–14/06/2020. Participants self-reported data on sociodemographic characteristics, diagnosed/suspected Covid-19, vaping status, changes in vaping and motivation to quit vaping since Covid-19.ResultsThere were no differences in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapers. Bayes factors indicated there was sufficient evidence to rule out small negative (protective) associations between vaping status and diagnosed/suspected Covid-19. Among current vapers (n=397), 9.7% (95% CI 6.8-12.6%) reported vaping less than usual since Covid-19, 42.0% (37.2-46.9%) reported vaping more, and 48.3% (43.4-53.2%) reported no change. In adjusted analyses, vaping less was associated with being female (aOR=3.40, 95% CI 1.73-6.71), not living with children (aOR=4.93, 1.15-21.08) and concurrent smoking (aOR=8.77, 3.04-25.64), while vaping more was associated with being younger (aOR=5.26, 1.37-20.0), living alone (aOR=2.08, 1.14-3.85), and diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 (aOR=4.72, 2.60-8.62). Of current vapers, 32.2% (95% CI 27.5-36.8%) were motivated to quit vaping since Covid-19, partly motivated by Covid-19, and 17.4%, (9.7-26.3%) of recent ex-vapers quit vaping due to Covid-19.ConclusionsAmong UK adults, self-reported diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 was not associated with vaping status. Half of current vapers changed their vaping consumption since Covid-19, with the majority reporting an increase, and a minority was motivated to quit due to Covid-19.RegistrationThe analysis plan was pre-registered, and it is available at https://osf.io/6j8z3/HighlightsNo difference found in diagnosed/suspected Covid-19 between never, current and ex-vapersHalf of current vapers changed their vaping consumption since Covid-19Motivation to quit vaping was partly related to Covid-19

Background and aims Admission to a smoke-free setting presents a unique opportunity to encourage smokers to quit. However, risk of relapse post-discharge is high, and little is known about effective strategies to support smoking cessation following discharge. We aimed to identify interventions that maintain abstinence following a smoke-free stay and determine their effectiveness, as well as the probable effectiveness of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in these interventions. Methods Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies of adult smokers aged ≥ 18 years who were temporarily or fully abstinent from smoking to comply with institutional smoke-free policies. Institutions included prison, inpatient mental health, substance misuse or acute hospital settings. A Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted using biochemically verified abstinence (7-day point prevalence or continuous abstinence). BCTs were defined as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness (if BCT was present in two or more long-term effective interventions) and feasibility (if BCT was also delivered in ≥ 25% of all interventions). Results Thirty-seven studies (intervention n = 9041, control n = 6195) were included: 23 RCTs (intervention n = 6593, control n = 5801); three non-randomized trials (intervention n = 845, control n = 394) and 11 cohort studies (n = 1603). Meta-analysis of biochemically verified abstinence at longest follow-up (4 weeks-18 months) found an overall effect in favour of intervention [risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08-1.49, I2 = 42%]. Nine BCTs (including 'pharmacological support', 'goal-setting (behaviour)' and 'social support') were characterized as 'promising' in terms of probable effectiveness and feasibility. Conclusions A systematic review and meta-analyses indicate that behavioural and pharmacological support is effective in maintaining smoking abstinence following a stay in a smoke-free institution. Several behaviour change techniques may help to maintain smoking abstinence up to 18 months post-discharge.

PURPOSE: Increasing personal protective behaviours is critical for stopping the spread of respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2: we need evidence to inform how to achieve this. We aimed to synthesise evidence on interventions to increase six personal protective behaviours (e.g. hand hygiene, face mask use) to limit the spread of respiratory viruses. METHODS: We used best practice for rapid evidence reviews. We searched Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus. Studies conducted in adults or children with active or passive comparators were included. We extracted data from published intervention descriptions on study design, intervention content, delivery mode, population, setting, mechanism(s) of action, acceptability, practicability, effectiveness, affordability, spill-over effects and equity impact. Study quality was assessed with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool. A narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: We identified 39 studies conducted across 15 countries. Interventions targeted hand hygiene (n=30) and/or face mask use (n=12) and used two- or three-arm study designs with passive comparators. Interventions were typically delivered face-to-face and included a median of three behaviour change techniques. The quality of included studies was low. Interventions to increase hand hygiene (k=6) had a medium, positive effect (_d_=0.62, 95% CI=0.43-0.80, _p_

BACKGROUND: Although many smokers use electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) to quit smoking, most continue to smoke while vaping. This dual use might delay cessation and increase toxicant exposure. We aimed to test the efficacy of a self-help intervention designed to help dual users to quit smoking. METHODS: In this three-arm randomised controlled trial we recruited individuals in the USA using Facebook and multimedia advertisements. Included participants were 18 years or older, smoked at least weekly in the preceding year, and vaped at least weekly in the preceding month. We used computer generated randomisation with balanced-permuted blocks (block size 10, with 2–4-4 ratio) to allocate participants to assessment only (ASSESS group), generic smoking cessation self-help booklets (GENERIC group), or booklets targeting dual users (eTARGET group). Individuals in the generic or targeted intervention groups received monthly cessation materials for 18 months, with assessments every 3 months for 24 months. The main outcome was self-reported 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence at each assessment point. All randomly allocated participants were included in primary analyses using generalised estimating equations for each of 20 datasets created by multiple imputation. Analysis of the χ(2)s produced an F test. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02416011, and is now closed. FINDINGS: Between July 12, 2016, and June 30, 2017, we randomly assigned 2896 dual users (575 to assessment, 1154 to generic intervention, and 1167 to targeted self-help). 7-day point-prevalence smoking abstinence increased from 14% at 3 months to 42% at 24 months (F(7,541·7)=67·1, p

AIM: To examine changes in smoking, drinking and quitting/reduction behaviour following the COVID-19 lockdown in England. DESIGN/SETTING: Monthly cross-sectional surveys representative of the adult population in England, aggregated before (April 2019-February 2020) versus after (April 2020) lockdown. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 558 adults (≥ 16 years). MEASUREMENTS: The independent variable was the timing of the COVID-19 lockdown (before versus after March 2020). Dependent variables were: prevalence of smoking and high-risk drinking, past-year cessation and quit attempts (among past-year smokers), past-year attempts to reduce alcohol consumption (among high-risk drinkers) and use of evidence-based (e.g. prescription medication/face-to-face behavioural support) and remote support [telephone support/websites/applications (apps)] for smoking cessation and alcohol reduction (among smokers/high-risk drinkers who made a quit/reduction attempt). Covariates included age, sex, social grade, region and level of nicotine and alcohol dependence (as relevant). FINDINGS: The COVID-19 lockdown was not associated with a significant change in smoking prevalence [17.0% (after) versus 15.9% (before), odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.95-1.24], but was associated with increases in quit attempts [39.6 versus 29.1%, adjusted odds ratio (ORadj ) = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.23-1.98], quit success (21.3 versus 13.9%, ORadj = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.22-3.33) and cessation (8.8 versus 4.1%, ORadj = 2.63, 95% CI = 1.69-4.09) among past-year smokers. Among smokers who tried to quit, there was no significant change in use of evidence-based support (50.0 versus 51.5%, ORadj = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.72-1.68) but use of remote support increased (10.9 versus 2.7%, ORadj = 3.59, 95% CI = 1.56-8.23). Lockdown was associated with increases in high-risk drinking (38.3 versus 25.1%, OR = 1.85, CI = 1.67-2.06), but also alcohol reduction attempts by high-risk drinkers (28.5 versus 15.3%, ORadj = 2.16, 95% CI = 1.77-2.64). Among high-risk drinkers who made a reduction attempt, use of evidence-based support decreased (1.2 versus 4.0%, ORadj = 0.23, 95% CI = 0.05-0.97) and there was no significant change in use of remote support (6.9 versus 6.1%, ORadj = 1.32, 95% CI = 0.64-2.75). CONCLUSIONS: Following the March 2020 COVID-19 lockdown, smokers and high-risk drinkers in England were more likely than before lockdown to report trying to quit smoking or reduce alcohol consumption and rates of smoking cessation and use of remote cessation support were higher. However, high-risk drinking prevalence increased post-lockdown and use of evidence-based support for alcohol reduction by high-risk drinkers decreased with no compensatory increase in use of remote support.

BackgroundThe Covid-19 pandemic raises questions about the role that relationships and interactions between humans and animals play in the context of widespread social distancing and isolation measures. We aimed to investigate links between mental health and loneliness, companion animal ownership, the human-animal bond, and human-animal interactions; and to explore animal owners' perceptions related to the role of their animals during lockdown.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey of UK residents over 18 years of age was conducted between April and June 2020. The questionnaire included validated and bespoke items measuring demographics; exposures and outcomes related to mental health, wellbeing and loneliness; the human-animal bond and human-animal interactions.ResultsOf 5,926 participants, 5,323 (89.8%) had at least one companion animal. Most perceived their animals to be a source of considerable support, but concerns were reported related to various practical aspects of providing care during lockdown. Strength of the human-animal bond did not differ significantly between species. Poorer mental health pre-lockdown was associated with a stronger reported human-animal bond (b = -.014, 95% CI [-.023 - -.005], p = .002). Animal ownership compared with non-ownership was associated with smaller decreases in mental health (b = .267, 95% CI [.079 - .455], p = .005) and smaller increases in loneliness (b = -.302, 95% CI [-.461 - -.144], p = .001) since lockdown.ConclusionThe human-animal bond is a construct that may be linked to mental health vulnerability in animal owners. Strength of the human-animal bond in terms of emotional closeness or intimacy dimensions appears to be independent of animal species. Animal ownership seemed to mitigate some of the detrimental psychological effects of Covid-19 lockdown. Further targeted investigation of the role of human-animal relationships and interactions for human health, including testing of the social buffering hypothesis and the development of instruments suited for use across animal species, is required.

AimsTo explore 1) associations between suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, hand washing, smoking status, e-cigarette use, and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use and 2) whether COVID-19 has prompted smoking and vaping quit attempts, and more smoking inside the home.DesignCross-sectional household surveys of a representative sample of the population in England from April–May 2020.ParticipantsThe sample included 3,285 adults aged ≥18 years.MeasurementsParticipants who reported they definitely or think they had coronavirus were classified as having a suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were asked how often they wash their hands after returning home, before eating, before preparing foods or before touching their face. They were also asked whether, due to COVID-19, they had i) attempted to quit smoking, ii) attempted to quit vaping, and iii) changed the amount they smoke inside the home.FindingsOdds of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection were significantly greater among current smokers (20.9%, adjusted odds ratio [ORadj]=1.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.04–1.73) and long-term (>1-year) ex-smokers (16.1%, ORadj=1.33, 95%CI=1.05–1.68) than never smokers (14.5%). Recent (adj=1.50, 95%CI=0.85–2.53, Bayes factor= 0.55–1.17). Bayes factors indicated there was sufficient evidence to rule out large differences in suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection by NRT use and medium differences by e-cigarette use. With the exception of hand washing before face touching, engagement in hand washing behaviours was high (>85%) regardless of nicotine use. A minority (12.2%) of past-year smokers who made a quit attempt in the past three months were triggered by COVID-19, and approximately one-in-ten current e-cigarette users reported attempting to quit vaping because of COVID-19. Most people reported smoking the same amount inside the home.ConclusionsIn a representative sample of the adult population in England, current smokers and long-term ex-smokers had higher odds of suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection than never smokers, but there were no large differences by NRT or e-cigarette use. In general, engagement in hand washing was high regardless of nicotine or tobacco use. A minority of past-year smokers and current e-cigarette users, respectively, attempted to quit smoking/vaping due to COVID-19.

This survey study assesses the perceptions of e-cigarettes among current smokers in England before and after the US outbreak of vaping-associated lung injury.

Background The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak may motivate smokers to attempt to stop in greater numbers. However, given the temporary closure of UK stop smoking services and vape shops, smokers attempting to quit may instead seek out mobile health support, such as smartphone apps. Objective We examined, using an interrupted time series approach, whether the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has been associated with a step change or increasing trend in UK downloads of an otherwise popular smoking cessation app, Smoke Free. Methods Data were from daily and nondaily adult smokers in the United Kingdom who had downloaded the Smoke Free app between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2020 (primary analysis), and January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020 (secondary analysis). The outcome variable was the number of downloads aggregated at the 12-hourly (primary analysis) or daily level (secondary analysis). The explanatory variable was the start of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, operationalized as March 1, 2020 (primary analysis), and January 15, 2020 (secondary analysis). Generalized additive mixed models adjusted for relevant covariates were fitted. Results Data were collected on 45,105 (primary analysis) and 119,881 (secondary analysis) users. In both analyses, there was no evidence for a step change or increasing trend in downloads attributable to the start of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. Calculation of Bayes factors (BFs) indicated that the data for the primary analysis favored the null hypothesis compared with large associations (for level, BF=0.25; for slope, BF=0.26) but were insensitive to the detection of small associations (for level, BF=0.78; for slope, BF=1.35). Conclusions In the United Kingdom, between January 1, 2020, and March 31, 2020, and between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, there was no evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak has been associated with a large step change or increasing trend in downloads of a popular smoking cessation app. Findings on the association of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with a small step change or increasing trend were inconclusive.

Background Improving adherence to self-protective behaviours is a public health priority. We aimed to assess the potential effectiveness and ease of use of an online version of the Risk Acceptance Ladder (RAL) in promoting help-seeking for cigarette smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, insufficient physical activity, or low fruit and vegetable consumption. Methods 843 UK adults were recruited, of whom 602 engaged in at least one risky behaviour. Those with no immediate plans to change (n = 171) completed a behaviour specific RAL. Participants were randomised to one of two conditions; a short message congruent (on-target, n = 73) or incongruent (off-target, n = 98) with their RAL response. Performance of the RAL was assessed by participants’ ability to select an applicable RAL item and reported ease of use of the RAL. Effectiveness was assessed by whether or not participants clicked a link to receive information about changing their target behaviour. Results Two thirds (68.9%, 95% CI = 61.8%-75.3%) of participants were able to select an applicable RAL item that corresponded to what they believed would need to change in order to alter their target behaviour, with 64.9% (95% CI = 57.5%-71.7%) reporting that it was easy to select one option. Compared with the off-target group, participants allocated to the on-target group had greater odds of clicking on the link to receive information (31.5% vs 19.4%; OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.01–4.26). Conclusion The Risk Acceptance Ladder may have utility as a tool for tailoring messages to prompt initial steps to engaging in self-protective behaviours.

ObjectivesTo investigate associations of dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes with subsequent quitting activity (smoking reduction, quit attempts and use of evidence-based cessation aids). To overcome potential confounding by factors associated with use of pharmacological support, we selected dual use of over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy (OTC NRT) and cigarettes as a behavioural control.DesignProspective cohort study with 6-month follow-up.SettingEngland, 2014–2016.Participants413 current smokers participating in the Smoking Toolkit Study, a representative survey of adults in England, who reported current use of e-cigarettes or OTC NRT and provided data at 6-month follow-up.Main outcome measuresThe exposure was dual use of e-cigarettes or OTC NRT at baseline. Outcomes were change in cigarette consumption, quit attempts and use of evidence-based cessation aids during quit attempts over 6-month follow-up. Relevant sociodemographic and smoking characteristics were included as covariates.ResultsAfter adjustment for covariates, dual e-cigarette users smoked two fewer cigarettes per day at follow-up than at baseline compared with dual OTC NRT users (B=2.01, 95% CI −3.62; −0.39, p=0.015). While dual e-cigarette users had 18% lower odds than dual OTC NRT users to make a quit attempt at follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00, p=0.049), the groups did not differ in use of cessation aids (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21, p=0.388).ConclusionsDual use of e-cigarettes is associated with a greater reduction in cigarette consumption than dual use of OTC NRT. It may discourage a small proportion of users from making a quit attempt compared with dual OTC NRT use but it does not appear to undermine use of evidence-based cessation aids.

Background: There remains uncertainty about Covid-19 risk factors. We examined UK adults’ risk perceptions for severe Covid-19 symptoms and whether engaging in concurrent health behaviours is associated with risk perceptions. / Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of data from the HEBECO study where 2206 UK adults classified potential factors (age 70+, ethnic minority, medical comorbidities, vaping, smoking cigarettes, alcohol drinking, regular physical activity, being overweight, eating unhealthy foods, using nicotine replacement therapy – NRT, lower income, poor housing, being a keyworker) as either increasing, decreasing, or having no impact on severe Covid-19 symptoms. Logistic regressions examined whether engaging in health behaviours was associated with risk perceptions after adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics, health conditions and other behaviours. / Results: The great majority (89-99%) of adults classified age 70+, having comorbidities, being a key worker, overweight, and from an ethnic minority as increasing the risk. People were less sure about alcohol drinking, vaping, and nicotine replacement therapy use (17.4-29.5% responding ‘don’t know’). Relative to those who did not, those who smoked tobacco, vaped and consumed alcohol had significantly (all p

ObjectiveTo review peer-reviewed evidence on heat-not-burn tobacco products (HnB), their secondhand emissions and use by humans; to identify differences between independent and industry-funded studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched up to 6 November 2017 for studies on HnB published after December 2009; reference lists were screened and other researchers contacted, yielding 637 records.Study selectionThirty-one publications on HnB secondhand emissions (n=16) or use by humans (n=15) were selected by two reviewers with excellent agreement (k=0.75).Data extractionData on authors’ affiliations, HnB products, secondhand emissions and human exposure were extracted by one reviewer. Two reviewers assessed the quality of experimental HnB studies using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool.Data synthesisTwenty out of 31 studies were affiliated with tobacco industry. Studies on secondhand emissions varied by methodology, products and comparators. Compared with cigarettes, HnB delivered up to 83% of nicotine and reduced levels of harmful and potentially harmful toxicants by at least 62% and particulate matter by at least 75%. Experimental HnB use studies were limited to one product, reductions of human exposure to toxicants varied between 42% and 96%. HnB use suppressed urges to smoke, but participants rated HnB less satisfying than cigarettes. While limited by methodological heterogeneity, findings were largely similar for independent and industry-funded studies.ConclusionsStudies on HnB secondhand emissions and human use were heterogeneous and largely affiliated with the manufacturers. HnB exposed users and bystanders to toxicants, although at substantially lower levels than cigarettes.

Summary Background Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking cessation have led to development of interventions that are specifically tailored for smokers from disadvantaged groups. We aimed to assess whether the effectiveness of interventions for disadvantaged groups is moderated by tailoring for socioeconomic position. Methods For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Central Register, and Tobacco Addiction Register of Clinical Trials and the IC-SMOKE database from their inception until Aug 18, 2019, for randomised controlled trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored or non-socioeconomic-position-tailored individual-level behavioural interventions for smoking cessation at 6 months or longer of follow-up in disadvantaged groups. Studies measured socioeconomic position via income, eligibility for government financial assistance, occupation, and housing. Studies were excluded if they were delivered at the community or population level, did not report differential effects by socioeconomic position, did not report smoking cessation outcomes from 6 months or longer after the start of the intervention, were delivered at a group level, or provided pharmacotherapy with standard behavioural support compared with behavioural support alone. Individual patient-level data were extracted from published reports and from contacting study authors. Random-effects meta-analyses and mixed-effects meta-regression analyses were done to assess associations between tailoring of the intervention and effectiveness. Meta-analysis outcomes were summarised as risk ratios (RR). Certainty of evidence was assessed within each study using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 and the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018103008. Findings Of 2376 studies identified by our literature search, 348 full-text articles were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Of these, 42 studies (26 168 participants) were included in the systematic review. 30 (71%) of 42 studies were done in the USA, three (7%) were done in the UK, two (5%) each in the Netherlands and Australia, and one (2%) each in Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, India, and China. 26 (62%) of 42 studies were trials of socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions and 16 (38%) were non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions. 17 (65%) of 26 socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions were in-person or telephone-delivered behavioural interventions, four (15%) were digital interventions, three (12%) involved financial incentives, and two (8%) were brief interventions. Individuals who participated in an intervention, irrespective of tailoring, were significantly more likely to quit smoking than were control participants (RR 1·56, 95% CI 1·39–1·75; I2=54·5%). Socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions did not yield better outcomes compared with non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions for disadvantaged groups (adjusted RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·81–1·27; β=0·011, SE=0·11; p=0·93). We observed similar effect sizes in separate meta-analyses of non-socioeconomic-position-tailored interventions using trial data from participants with high socioeconomic position (RR 2·00, 95% CI 1·36–2·93; I2=82·7%) and participants with low socioeconomic position (1·94, 1·31–2·86; I2=76·6%), although certainty of evidence from these studies was graded as low. Interpretation We found evidence that individual-level interventions can assist disadvantaged smokers with quitting, but there were no large moderating effects of tailoring for disadvantaged smokers. Improvements in tailored intervention development might be necessary to achieve equity-positive smoking cessation outcomes. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Smartphone applications (apps) might be able to reach pregnant smokers who do not engage with face-to-face support. However, we do not know how far pregnant smokers will engage with smoking cessation apps or what components are likely to be effective. This study aimed to assess pregnant smokers’ engagement with the SmokeFree Baby app (v1) and to assess the short-term efficacy of selected components (“modules”) for smoking abstinence. Positive outcomes would provide a basis for further development and evaluation. SmokeFree Baby was developed drawing on behavior change theories and relevant evidence. Pregnant smokers (18+) who were interested in quitting and set a quit date were recruited. Following multiphase optimization development principles, participants (N = 565) were randomly allocated to one of 32 (2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 2) experimental groups in a full factorial design to evaluate five modules (each in minimal and full version: identity, health information, stress management, face-to-face support, and behavioral substitution). Measures of engagement included duration and frequency of engagement with the app. Smoking abstinence was measured by self-reported number of smoke-free days up to 4 weeks from the quit date. Participants engaged with the app for a mean of 4.5 days (SD = 8.5) and logged in a mean of 2.9 times (SD = 3.1). Main effects of the modules on the number of smoke-free days were not statistically significant (identity: p = .782, health information: p = .905, stress management: p = .103, face-to-face support: p = .397, behavioral substitution: p = .945). Despite systematic development and usability testing, engagement with SmokeFree Baby (v1) was low and the app did not appear to increase smoking abstinence during pregnancy.

Purpose Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is often used suboptimally by smokers. Previous research has focused on cognitions and attitudes as potential reasons. This study drew on theoretical frameworks of behaviour to comprehensively explore smokers’ NRT use to identify new intervention targets. Methods Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 16 adult UK-based smokers and ex-smokers who used NRT in recent quit attempts (mean (SD) age = 34.9(10.3); 82.3% women). The COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation, behaviour) model and the theoretical domains framework informed the interviews and analyses. Data were analysed in NVivo 11. Results Two related behaviours were identified relevant to NRT use: use of NRT per se and engaging with information and support with NRT use. A meta-theme of “missed opportunity” identified instances when smokers did not or could not engage in these behaviours. For use of NRT per se, these included limited knowledge, poor technique of use, low motivation to optimise use, and lack of role models. For engaging with information and support, they included low awareness of optimal use techniques, selective information-seeking, low expectations, limited exposure to guidelines, deficient advice from healthcare professionals, and suboptimal product display. Prior suboptimal experience tended to negatively affect subsequent use and views. Participants were interested in accessible and comprehensive guidelines on NRT and its use. Conclusions There appear to be important missed opportunities for optimal use of NRT both in terms of use itself and engagement with information on optimal use. These missed opportunities arise from a range of capability, motivational, and opportunity-related factors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s12529-018-9735-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Literature on population awareness about actual causes of cancer is growing but comparatively little is known about the prevalence of people's belief concerning mythical causes of cancer. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of these beliefs and their association with socio-demographic characteristics and health behaviours. Methods A survey containing validated measures of beliefs about actual and mythical cancer causes and health behaviours (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption, overweight) was administered to a representative English population sample (N = 1330). Results Awareness of actual causes of cancer (52% accurately identified; 95% confidence interval [CI] 51–54) was greater than awareness of mythical cancer causes (36% accurately identified; 95% CI 34–37; P, Highlights • Approximately half of known lifestyle-related risk factors were not recognised by the general public in England. • Belief in mythical risk factors was common, particularly stress, food additives and electromagnetic frequencies. • Knowledge of actual but not mythical cancers causes was associated with health-protective behaviours.

ObjectivesTo examine the prevalence of, and sociodemographic and smoking-related characteristics associated with, long-term e-cigarette use compared with long-term nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) use.DesignCross-sectional and prospective survey, the Smoking Toolkit Study, with baseline data collected between September 2014 and September 2016 and follow-ups at 6 and 12 months.SettingEngland.ParticipantsPopulation representative sample of 40 933 adults aged 16+ years.Main outcome measuresPrevalence of long-term (≥12 months) use of e-cigarettes and NRT by retrospective self-report among baseline respondents (all adults, n=40 933; smokers, n=8406) and current use at baseline, 6 months and 12 months in a subsample of smokers who responded to follow-up (n=733).ResultsOf baseline respondents, 1.5% (95% CI 1.4% to 1.6%, n=604) of adults and 3.9% (95% CI 3.5% to 4.3%, n=327) of smokers were long-term e-cigarette users and 0.5% (95% CI 0.4% to 0.6%, n=205) of adults and 1.3% (95% CI 1.1% to 1.5%, n=112) of smokers were long-term NRT users. Assessed prospectively, 13.4% (95% CI 10.9% to 15.9%, n=100) of smokers were long-term e-cigarette users and 1.9% (95% CI 0.9% to 2.9%, n=14) were long-term NRT users. Among all adults, long-term use by never smokers of either e-cigarettes (0.1%, n=27) or NRT (0.0%, n=7) was rare. Among past-year smokers, long-term e-cigarette and NRT use was higher among older smokers compared with those who were 16–34 years old (OR range=1.55–5.21). Long-term e-cigarette use only was lower in smokers who were less educated (OR=0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.81), from social grades C2DE (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.84) and with children in the household (OR=0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.85). Long-term e-cigarette use and long-term NRT use were higher among smokers more motivated to quit (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.60 and OR=2.33, 95% CI 1.57 to 3.46).ConclusionsIn the adult population in England, long-term use of e-cigarettes and long-term use of NRT are almost exclusively by current or ex-smokers. Only a minority of past-year smokers retrospectively report long-term e-cigarette or NRT use, but this figure may be an underestimate, especially for e-cigarette use, which is more than threefold higher when assessed prospectively.

Background Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) bought over the counter (OTC) appears to be largely ineffective for smoking cessation, which may be partially explained by poor adherence. We developed and evaluated the NRT2Quit smartphone app (for iOS) designed to improve quit attempts with OTC NRT by improving adherence to the medications. Methods This study was a pragmatic double-blind randomised controlled trial with remote recruitment through leaflets distributed to over 300 UK-based community pharmacies. The study recruited adult daily smokers (≥10 cigarettes per day) who bought NRT, wanted to quit smoking, downloaded NTR2Quit and completed the registration process within the app. Participants were automatically randomly assigned within the app to the intervention (full) version of NRT2Quit or to its control (minimal) versions. The primary outcome was biochemically verified 4-week abstinence assessed at 8-week follow-up using Russell Standard criteria and intention to treat. Bayes factors were calculated for the cessation outcome. Secondary outcomes were self-reported abstinence, NRT use, app use and satisfaction with the app. Results The study under-recruited. Only 41 participants (3.5% of the target sample) were randomly assigned to NRT2Quit (n = 16) or the control (n = 25) app versions between March 2015 and September 2016. The follow-up rate was 51.2%. The intervention participants had numerically higher biochemically verified quit rates (25.0% versus 8.0%, P = 0.19, odds ratio = 3.83, 0.61–24.02). The calculated Bayes factor, 1.92, showed that the data were insensitive to test for the hypothesis that the intervention app version aided cessation. The intervention participants had higher median logins (2.5 versus 0, P = 0.01) and were more likely to use NRT at follow-up (100.0% versus 28.6%, P = 0.03) and recommend NRT2Quit to others (100.0% versus 28.6%, P = 0.01). Conclusions Despite very low recruitment, there was preliminary but inconclusive evidence that NRT2Quit may improve short-term abstinence and adherence among smokers using NRT. Well-powered studies on NRT2Quit are needed, but different recruitment methods will be required to engage smokers through community pharmacies or other channels. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN33423896 , prospectively registered on 22 March 2015. Open-Access-Publikationsfonds 2019

Key Points Question How has population cigarette consumption in England changed since 2011, and to what extent do survey measures of consumption and recorded cigarette sales produce similar estimates? Findings This study of survey and sales data found close alignment between estimates of long- and short-term changes in population cigarette consumption in England derived from the Smoking Toolkit Study, a monthly national survey, and recorded sales. According to both methods, monthly cigarette consumption decreased by almost one-quarter between 2011 and 2018, equating to a decline of more than 117 million cigarettes per month or 1.4 billion cigarettes per year. Meaning Cigarette consumption in England has decreased since 2011, with survey and sales data providing similar estimates., This study compares estimates of changes in cigarette consumption in England between 2011 and 2018 using survey data from a nationally representative sample vs retail sales data., Importance Population cigarette consumption is declining in many countries. Accurate estimates of long- and short-term changes are vital for policy evaluation and planning. Survey data and sales data that are used to make these estimates each have important potential biases, so triangulation using different methods is required for robust estimation. Objectives To compare monthly estimates of cigarette consumption in England from a nationally representative survey and recorded cigarette sales and to triangulate an accurate estimate of changes in cigarette consumption since 2011. Design, Setting, and Participants This study used time series analyses based on survey data and recorded cigarette sales to estimate and compare trends in population cigarette consumption in England from 2011 to 2018. Survey participants were representative samples of 1700 people aged 16 years or older each month in England. Main Outcomes and Measures Monthly cigarette retail sales data from August 2011 through February 2018 were obtained from a data agency. Monthly self-reports of cigarette consumption were collected over the same period using the Smoking Toolkit Study. Results A total of 136 677 individuals (51.1% female; mean [SD] age, 46.7 [18.8] years) were surveyed. Over the study period, mean monthly cigarette consumption in England was 2.85 billion (95% CI, 2.78 billion to 2.93 billion) cigarettes based on survey data compared with 3.08 billion (95% CI, 3.03 billion to 3.13 billion) estimated from sales data. Over the whole period, cigarette consumption declined by 24.4% based on survey data and 24.1% based on sales data. This equated to 118.4 million and 117.4 million fewer cigarettes consumed per month (or approximately 1.4 billion per year) based on survey data and sales data, respectively. After adjusting for underlying trends, month-by-month changes in cigarette consumption were closely aligned: a 1% change in survey-estimated cigarette consumption was associated with a 0.98% (95% CI, 0.53%-1.44%) change in sales estimates. Conclusions and Relevance Survey data and sales data were closely aligned in showing that overall cigarette sales in England have declined by almost a quarter since 2011, amounting to more than 1 billion fewer cigarettes smoked each year. The alignment between the 2 methods provides increased confidence in the accuracy of parameters provided by the Smoking Toolkit Study and sales data. It indicates that estimated changes in cigarette consumption are robust and provide a meaningful basis for policy evaluation and planning.