COVID-19 has become a global pandemic, with over 81 million cases worldwide. To assess changes in tobacco use as a result of the pandemic, we surveyed a convenience sample of current tobacco users between April and June 2020. The sample was taken from a tobacco user research registry (n = 3396) from the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. Participants who responded to the survey and were eligible for this study (n = 291) were 25.6% male, 93% white, and had a mean age of 47.3 (SD = 11.6) years. There were no reports of participants testing positive for COVID-19, but 21.7% reported experiencing symptoms associated with the virus. Most participants (67%) believed that their risk of contracting COVID-19 was the same as non-tobacco users, but 57.7% believed that their risk of serious complications, if infected, was greater compared to non-tobacco users. A total of 28% reported increasing their cigarette use during the pandemic. The most common reasons for increased use were increased stress, more time at home, and boredom while quarantined. Nearly 15% reported decreasing their tobacco use. The most common reasons for reduced use were health concerns and more time around non-smokers (including children). A total of 71 (24.5%) users reported making a quit attempt. Characterizing these pandemic-related changes in tobacco use may be important to understanding the full scope of subsequent health outcomes resulting from the pandemic. Tobacco cessation resources should be tailored to allow for safe, appropriate access for those interested in quitting.

Background The capability of electronic cigarette devices (e-cigs) to deliver nicotine is key to their potential to replace combustible cigarettes. We compared nicotine delivery and subjective effects associated with the use of two classes of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Methods 14 e-cigarette users were instructed to vape their own e-cigarette device every 20 seconds for 10 minutes while blood was drawn at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10,12, and 15 minutes after initiating vaping. Users rated withdrawal symptoms and side effects before and after vaping. E-cigarette devices were classified as first-generation (same size as cigarette, no activation button) or advanced (larger than cigarette with an activation button). Separately, 10 cigarette smokers completed a similar protocol. Fisher’s Exact Test and two-sided t-tests were used as appropriate to determine differences in outcomes between first-generation e-cigarette users, advanced e-cigarette users, and smokers. Results Compared to first-generation devices, advanced devices were associated with greater serum nicotine C max (ng/ml) (11.5 v. 2.8, p = 0.0231) and greater nicotine boost (ng/ml) (10.8 v. 1.8, p = 0.0177). Overall, e-cigarettes users experienced a significant reduction in withdrawal and craving, although there were no significant differences between users of first-generation and advanced devices. Comparing e-cigarettes overall to cigarettes, cigarettes were associated with greater C max (25.9 v. 9.0, p = 0.0043) and greater nicotine boost (21.0 v. 8.2, p = 0.0128). Conclusions Advanced e-cigarettes delivered significantly more nicotine than first-generation devices but less than combustible cigarettes. Overall, e-cigarette use was associated with a reduction in withdrawal and craving with no reported side effects. The wide variation in nicotine absorption from different e-cigarette devices should be considered in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation.

Mindfulness, a construct that entails moment-to-moment effort to be aware of present experiences and positive attitudinal features, has become integrated into the sciences. The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), one popular measure of mindfulness, exhibits different responses to positively and negatively worded items in nonmeditating groups. The current study employed confirmatory factor analysis with a large undergraduate sample to examine the validity of a hierarchical mindfulness model and whether response patterns related to item wording arose from method effects. Results indicated that a correlated facets model better explained the data and that negative and positive wording constituted substantive method effects. This study suggests that the FFMQ measures components that may relate to, but do not seem to directly reflect, a latent variable of mindfulness. The authors recommend against the use of an FFMQ total score, favoring individual scale scores, and further examination of method effects in mindfulness scales.