First versus second generation electronic cigarettes: predictors of choice and effects on urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms
Dawkins, L., Kimber, Catherine, Panwanesarasa, Yasothani and Soar, K. 2014. First versus second generation electronic cigarettes: predictors of choice and effects on urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms. Addiction. 110 (4), pp. 669-677.
|Authors||Dawkins, L., Kimber, Catherine, Panwanesarasa, Yasothani and Soar, K.|
Aims: To 1) estimate predictors of first vs. second generation electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) choice; 2) determine whether a second generation device was i) superior for reducing urge to smoke and withdrawal symptoms (WS) and ii) associated with enhanced positive subjective effects. Design: Mixed effects experimental design. Phase 1: reason for e-cigarette choice was assessed via questionnaire. Phase 2: participants were randomly allocated to first or second generation e-cigarette condition. Urge to smoke and WS were measured before, and 10mins after, taking 10 e-cigarette puffs. Setting: University of East London, UK. Participants: 97 smokers (mean age 26; SD 8.7; 54% female) Measurements: Single item urge to smoke scale to assess craving; Mood and Physical Symptoms Scale (MPSS) to assess WS. Subjective effects included: satisfaction, hit, ‘felt like smoking’ and ‘would use to stop smoking’ (Yes vs. No response). Findings: Equal numbers chose each device but none of the predictor variables (gender, age, tobacco dependence, previous e-cigarette use) accounted for choice. Only baseline urge to smoke/WS predicted urge to smoke/WS 10 minutes after use (B=0.38; P<0.001 and B=0.53; P<0.001). E-cigarette device was not a significant predictor. Those using the second generation device were more likely to report satisfaction and use in a quit attempt (χ2=12.10, P=0.001 and χ2=5.53, P=0.02). Conclusions: First and second generation e-cigarettes appear to be similarly effective in reducing urge to smoke and WS during abstinence but second generation devices appear to be more satisfying to users.
|Journal citation||110 (4), pp. 669-677|
|Accepted author manuscript|
|Web address (URL)||http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/add.12807|
|Publication process dates|
|Deposited||12 Dec 2014|
|Accepted||18 Nov 2014|
|Accepted||10 Nov 2014|
|Funder||University of East London|
|Copyright information||© Society for the Study of Addiction. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article tol be published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12807/abstract. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.|
3views this month
6downloads this month