Electronic cigarette use and risk perception in a Stop Smoking Service in England

Abstract

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use rose substantially within the UK in recent years but currently, Stop Smoking Services in England do not prescribe them due to a lack of regulation. Previous research has examined e-cigarette use and attitudes within English Stop Smoking Services using samples of practitioners and managers; the current study recruited a sample of service users. Methods: Participants (N = 319) aged 18–60 years old were recruited from Roy Castle FagEnds, Liverpool, England (Stop Smoking Service). A cross-sectional questionnaire was completed, which recorded demographic variables, e-cigarette use alongside risk perception, and lastly, smoking behaviour i.e. smoking duration, cigarettes per day, and nicotine dependence. Results: Most participants were female (57.1%), current smokers (53.0%), and current or former e-cigarette users (51.7%). Participants who perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than smoked tobacco were more likely to have smoked fewer cigarettes per day (p = 0.008). Furthermore, those who felt uncertain whether e-cigarettes were safer than smoked tobacco, were less likely to have tried them (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study suggests that e-cigarette use is becoming common among users of Stop Smoking Services (despite e-cigarettes being unavailable from such services) and that e-cigarette risk perception is related to e-cigarette status. The results highlight the importance of providing smokers intending to quit smoking with current and accurate e-cigarette information. Findings may inform future Stop Smoking Services provision and the results demonstrate that further research is warranted.

• E-cigarettes
• electronic cigarettes
• health services
• risk perception
• smoking
• smoking cessation

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the staff and clients from Roy Castle FagEnds (Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation) for their support with the study. We would also like to acknowledge Liverpool Clinical Commissioning Group (formerly Liverpool Primary Care Trust) for their ongoing support with the study.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.