"It is the One Thing that has Worked": facilitators and barriers to switching to nicotine salt pod system e-cigarettes among African American and Latinx people who smoke: a content analysis

Kim Pulvers, Myra Rice, Jasjit S Ahluwalia, Michael J Arnold, Crystal Marez, Nicole L Nollen, Kim Pulvers, Myra Rice, Jasjit S Ahluwalia, Michael J Arnold, Crystal Marez, Nicole L Nollen

Abstract

Background: Electronic cigarettes are a harm reduction strategy for individuals who smoke cigarettes who cannot or do not want to quit using FDA-approved cessation methods. Identifying perceived facilitators and barriers to switching among people who smoke cigarettes is critical to optimizing health impact. This is particularly important for the most dominant e-cigarette device, nicotine salt pod electronic cigarettes. We investigate the experience using pod electronic cigarettes among African American and Latinx individuals who smoke, the two largest racial/ethnic minority groups who experience significant health disparities.

Methods: From July 2018 to May 2019, adults who smoked cigarettes, age 21 + (N = 114; M age = 44.6, 59.6% male, 52.6% African American from Kansas City, 47.4% Latinx from San Diego) received JUUL-brand electronic cigarettes (referred to hereafter as JUUL) for 6 weeks and answered interview questions at week six. We inquired what they liked and disliked about using JUUL, what helped with switching and made switching difficult, future intentions for continued JUUL use, and how JUUL compared to past smoking reduction methods. Responses were coded into themes by independent raters. Theme frequencies were analyzed separately by race/ethnicity and week 6 use trajectory (exclusive JUUL use, dual JUUL and cigarette use, exclusive cigarette use).

Results: Clean/smell was the aspect of using JUUL most commonly liked (23%), followed by convenience (19%). Coughing/harshness was a more common barrier to switching for African American (44%) than Latinx (9%), and for continuing cigarette use (56%) than for those who exclusively switched or dually used JUUL and combustible cigarettes (15-21%). Most (78% African American; 90% Latinx) reported that the benefits of using JUUL outweighed barriers, and this varied by JUUL use trajectory: 94% exclusive switch, 86% dual use, and 42% continued cigarette use. The majority said they would continue using JUUL to replace cigarettes (83% African American; 94% Latinx) and that JUUL worked better than other methods to reduce cigarettes (72%).

Conclusion: African American and Latinx individuals who smoked experience using pod electronic cigarettes was generally positive. Understanding facilitators and impediments to switching to electronic cigarettes among racial/ethnic minority people who smoke can inform harm reduction interventions and reduce tobacco-related health disparities. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03511001 posted April 27, 2018.

Keywords: Electronic nicotine delivery systems; Ethnic groups; Harm reduction; Minority groups; Smokers; Smoking reduction; Tobacco products.

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Ahluwalia serves as a consultant to Lucy Goods, a manufacturer of nicotine gum. Other authors have no declarations of interest to report.

© 2021. The Author(s).

References

    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Public health consequences of e-cigarettes. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; 2018.
    1. Goniewicz ML, Smith DM, Edwards KC, Blount BC, Caldwell KL, Feng J, et al. Comparison of nicotine and toxicant exposure in users of electronic cigarettes and combustible cigarettes. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(8):e185937–e185937. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.5937.
    1. Goniewicz ML, Gawron M, Smith DM, Peng M, Jacob P, Benowitz NL. Exposure to nicotine and selected toxicants in cigarette smokers who switched to electronic cigarettes: a longitudinal within-subjects observational study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017;19(2):160–167. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw160.
    1. Czoli CD, Fong GT, Goniewicz ML, Hammond D. Biomarkers of exposure among “dual users” of tobacco cigarettes and electronic cigarettes in Canada. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(9):1259–1266. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty174.
    1. McRobbie H, Phillips A, Goniewicz ML, Smith KM, Knight-West O, Przulj D, et al. Effects of switching to electronic cigarettes with and without concurrent smoking on exposure to nicotine, carbon monoxide, and acrolein. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2015;8(9):873–878. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-15-0058.
    1. Shahab L, Goniewicz ML, Blount BC, Brown J, McNeill A, Alwis KU, et al. Nicotine, carcinogen, and toxin exposure in long-term e-cigarette and nicotine replacement therapy users: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;166(6):390–400. doi: 10.7326/M16-1107.
    1. Pulvers K, Emami AS, Nollen NL, Romero DR, Strong DR, Benowitz NL, et al. Tobacco consumption and toxicant exposure of cigarette smokers using electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(2):206–214. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntw333.
    1. Piper ME, Baker TB, Benowitz NL, Kobinsky KH, Jorenby DE. Dual users compared to smokers: demographics, dependence, and biomarkers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(9):1279–1284. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty231.
    1. Cunningham TJ, Croft JB, Liu Y, Lu H, Eke PI, Giles WH. Vital signs: racial disparities in age-specific mortality among blacks or African Americans—United States, 1999–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(17):444. 10.15585/mmwr.mm6617e1.
    1. Haiman CA, Stram DO, Wilkens LR, Pike MC, Kolonel LN, Henderson BE, et al. Ethnic and racial differences in the smoking-related risk of lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(4):333–342. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa033250.
    1. Harlow AF, Stokes A, Brooks DR. Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic differences in e-cigarette uptake among cigarette smokers: longitudinal analysis of the population assessment of tobacco and health (PATH) study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(10):1385–1393. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty141.
    1. Hartmann-Boyce J, McRobbie H, Lindson N, Bullen C, Begh R, Theodoulou A, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;Art. No.: CD010216(10). 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub4.
    1. Giovenco D. Different smokes for different folks? e-cigarettes and tobacco disparities. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(9):1162–1163. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2019.305250.
    1. Smiley SL, DeAtley T, Rubin LF, Harvey E, Kierstead EC, Webb Hooper M, et al. Early subjective sensory experiences with “cigalike” e-cigarettes among African American menthol smokers: a qualitative study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(9):1069–1075. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntx102.
    1. Duell AK, Pankow JF, Peyton DH. Free-base nicotine determination in electronic cigarette liquids by 1H NMR spectroscopy. Chem Res Toxicol. 2018;31(6):431–434. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00097.
    1. Omaiye EE, McWhirter KJ, Luo W, Pankow JF, Talbot P. High-nicotine electronic cigarette products: toxicity of Juul fluids and aerosols correlates strongly with nicotine and some flavor chemical concentrations. Chem Res Toxicol. 2019;32(6):1058–1069. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00381.
    1. Walley SC, Wilson KM, Winickoff JP, Groner J. A public health crisis: electronic cigarettes, vape, and JUUL. Pediatrics. 2019;143(6):e20182741. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2741.
    1. Krishnan-Sarin S, Jackson A, Morean M, Kong G, Bold KW, Camenga DR, et al. E-cigarette devices used by high-school youth. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;194:395–400. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.10.022.
    1. Pulvers K, Nollen NL, Rice M, Schmid CH, Qu K, Benowitz NL, et al. Effect of pod e-cigarettes vs cigarettes on carcinogen exposure among African American and Latinx smokers: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(11):e2026324–e2026324. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.26324.
    1. Hajek P, Pittaccio K, Pesola F, Myers Smith K, Phillips-Waller A, Przulj D. Nicotine delivery and users’ reactions to Juul compared with cigarettes and other e-cigarette products. Addiction. 2020;115(6):1141–1148. doi: 10.1111/add.14936.
    1. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
    1. Nastasi BK, Hitchcock JH, Brown LM. An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies: moving toward fully integrated synergistic research models. In: A. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research [Internet]. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. .
    1. Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Knafl G. On quantitizing. J Mix Methods Res. 2009;3(3):208–222. doi: 10.1177/1558689809334210.
    1. Goldenson NI, Buchhalter AR, Augustson EM, Rubinstein ML, Henningfield JE. Abuse liability assessment of the JUUL system in four flavors relative to combustible cigarette, nicotine gum and a comparator electronic nicotine delivery system among adult smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020:108395. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2020.108395.
    1. Hoek J, Thrul J, Ling P. Qualitative analysis of young adult ENDS users' expectations and experiences. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e014990. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014990.
    1. Shao XM, Friedman TC. Pod-mod vs. conventional e-cigarettes: nicotine chemistry, pH, and health effects. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2020;128(4):1056–8. 10.1152/japplphysiol.00717.2019.
    1. Gunawan T, Juliano LM. Differences in smoking topography and subjective responses to smoking among African American and White menthol and non-menthol smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(10):1718–1725. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa079.
    1. Pérez-Stable EJ, Herrera B, Jacob P, 3rd, Benowitz NL. Nicotine metabolism and intake in black and white smokers. JAMA. 1998;280(2):152–156. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.2.152.
    1. Hyde J, Hankins M, Deale A, Marteau TM. Interventions to increase self-efficacy in the context of addiction behaviours: a systematic literature review. J Health Psychol. 2008;13(5):607–623. doi: 10.1177/1359105308090933.
    1. Giovino GA, Villanti AC, Mowery PD, Sevilimedu V, Niaura RS, Vallone DM, et al. Differential trends in cigarette smoking in the USA: is menthol slowing progress? Tob control. 2015;24(1):28–37. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051159.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Smoking Cessation A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2020.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner