背景:对烟草和电子烟(电子烟)的双重使用模式知之甚少,特别是关于导致人们在特定情况下选择这两种产品的因素。确定与产品使用相关的环境因素将增强对双重产品使用维护的理解。
方法:双重使用(N=102)的个人通过短信完成了关于最近使用烟草和电子烟两周的生态瞬时评估调查。产品合法性,可用性,渴望,吸烟/vape的其他人的存在,并评估了社会不赞成。使用分层逻辑回归分析数据,以确定与烟草与电子烟使用可能性相关的因素。
结果:与使用烟草而不是电子烟的可能性增加相关的背景包括存在其他吸烟的人(OR=2.74,p<.0001)和经历烟草香烟渴望升高(OR=3.51,p<.0001)。烟草超过电子烟使用的可能性降低与吸烟限制有关(OR=0.26,p=0.003),其他vape的人的存在(OR=0.46,p<.0001),并经历了升高的电子烟渴望(OR=0.23,p<0.0001)。电子烟的合法性,社会不赞成,替代产品的可用性与一种产品的使用没有显着相关。相对烟草的个体差异评分(vs.电子烟)的使用模式并没有显著缓解这些影响。
结论:这项研究提供了有关双重用途行为模式的基本信息,这告诉我们对双重用途的人的理解。诸如吸烟限制,渴望,和社会背景显着区分使用烟草和电子烟。这表明在使用烟草和电子烟的人中双重使用烟草和电子烟的特定产品动机。
结论:这项研究评估了在国家招募的双重使用人群样本中,瞬时情境因素与双重使用之间的关系。对日常生活中双重用途的评估提供了有关双重用途模式以及每种产品的不同使用动机的新颖信息。这些信息对于建立烟草和电子烟双重使用的理论框架至关重要。
BACKGROUND: Little is known about patterns of dual use of tobacco and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), especially regarding the factors that lead people to choose either product in particular situations. Identifying contextual factors that are associated with product use would enhance understanding of the maintenance of dual product use.
METHODS: Individuals who dual use (N = 102) completed ecological momentary assessment surveys via text message regarding the recent use of tobacco and e-cigarettes for 2 weeks. Product legality, availability, craving, the presence of other people who smoke/vape, and social disapproval were assessed. Data were analyzed using hierarchical logistic regression to identify factors associated with the likelihood of tobacco versus e-cigarette use.
RESULTS: Contexts associated with increased likelihood of using tobacco rather than e-cigarettes included being in the presence of other people who smoke (odds ratio [OR] = 3.50, p < .0001) and experiencing elevated tobacco cigarette craving (OR = 3.51, p < .0001). Decreased likelihood of tobacco over e-cigarette use was associated with smoking restrictions (OR = 0.26, p = .003), the presence of other people who vape (OR = 0.38, p < .001), and experiencing elevated e-cigarette craving (OR = 0.23, p < .0001). The legality of e-cigarettes, social disapproval, and the availability of the alternative product were not significantly associated with the use of one product over the other. An individual difference score of relative tobacco (vs. e-cigarette) use pattern did not significantly moderate these effects.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provided essential information regarding behavioral patterns of dual use, which informs our understanding of people who dual use. Contexts such as smoking restrictions, craving, and social context significantly differentiated between the use of tobacco and e-cigarettes. This suggests product-specific motivations for dual use of tobacco and e-cigarettes in people who use both.
CONCLUSIONS: This study assessed the relationship between momentary contextual factors and dual use in a nationally recruited sample of people who dual use. Assessments of dual use in daily life provided novel information regarding patterns of dual use as well as differential use-motivations for each product. This information will be essential to build a theoretical framework of dual use of tobacco and e-cigarettes.