Background Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol for inhalation. The liquid usually comprises propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, and stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organizations, tobacco control advocacy groups and policy makers have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can help smokers quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. Objectives To evaluate the safety and effect of using ECs to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CEN-TRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records from 2004 to January 2016, together with reference checking and contact with study authors. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which current smokers (motivated or unmotivated to quit) were randomized to EC or a control condition, and which measured abstinence rates at six months or longer. As the field of EC research is new, we also included cohort follow-up studies with at least six months follow-up. We included randomized cross-over trials, RCTs and cohort follow-up studies that included at least one week of EC use for assessment of adverse events (AEs). Data collection and analysis We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

Background Financial incentives, monetary or vouchers, are widely used in an attempt to precipitate, reinforce and sustain behaviour change, including smoking cessation. They have been used in workplaces, in clinics and hospitals, and within community programmes. Objectives To determine the long-term effect of incentives and contingency management programmes for smoking cessation. Search methods For this update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The most recent searches were conducted in July 2018. Selection criteria We considered only randomised controlled trials, allocating individuals, workplaces, groups within workplaces, or communities to smoking cessation incentive schemes or control conditions. We included studies in a mixed-population setting (e.g. community, work-, clinicor institution-based), and also studies in pregnant smokers. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methods. The primary outcome measure in the mixed-population studies was abstinence from smoking at longest follow-up (at least six months from the start of the intervention). In the trials of pregnant women we used abstinence measured at the longest follow-up, and at least to the end of the pregnancy. Where available, we pooled outcome data using a Mantel-Haenzel random-effects model, with results reported as risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using adjusted estimates for cluster-randomised trials. We analysed studies carried out in mixed populations separately from those carried out in pregnant populations. Main results Thirty-three mixed-population studies met our inclusion criteria, covering more than 21,600 participants; 16 of these are new to this version of the review. Studies were set in varying locations, including community settings, clinics or health centres, workplaces, and outpatient drug clinics. We judged eight studies to be at low risk of bias, and 10 to be at high risk of bias, with the rest at unclear risk. Twenty-four of the trials were run in the USA, two in Thailand and one in the Phillipines. The rest were European. Incentives offered included cash payments or vouchers for goods and groceries, offered directly or collected and redeemable online. The pooled RR for quitting with incentives at longest follow-up (six months or more) compared with controls was 1.49 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.73; 31 RCTs, adjusted N = 20,097; I 2 = 33%). Results were not sensitive to the exclusion of six studies where an incentive for cessation was offered at long-term follow up (result excluding those Incentives for smoking cessation (Review)

BackgroundWe have little understanding of how vapers use e-cigarettes beyond cessation. E-cigarettes may have a role to play in reducing the health-related harms of tobacco smoking, through not only assisting smoking cessation attempts but also supporting long-term abstinence from smoking. However, there are fears that vaping may lead to the ‘renormalisation’ of smoking type behaviours. This study aimed to explore patterns of use and reported experiences of vapers quitting smoking using an e-cigarette in relation to long-term smoking status (abstinence or relapse).MethodsA purposive sample of 40 UK vapers was matched to a sampling frame of demographic characteristics from a representative sample of UK quitters. Following full informed consent, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted. Data were thematically analysed by two members of the research team. Final thematic analysis was verified and agreed by consensus.ResultsThe sample self-reported long histories of tobacco use and multiple previous quit attempts which had eventually resulted in relapse back to smoking, although a small but important group had never before attempted to quit. Initiating e-cigarette use was experienced as a revelation for some, who were quickly able to fully switch to using e-cigarettes as an alternative to tobacco smoking. For others, periods of dual use or smoking relapse combined with attempts at vaping that were not initially satisfactory. Many of these chose a cheaper ‘cig-a-like’ device which they found to be inadequate. Experimentation with different devices and different setups, over time, resulted in some ‘sliding’ rather than switching to vaping. This involved periods of ‘dual use’. Some settled on patterns of vaping as a direct substitute of previous tobacco smoking, whereas others reported ‘grazing’ patterns of vaping throughout the day that were perceived to support tobacco smoking abstinence.ConclusionsOur data demonstrates that e-cigarettes may be a unique harm reduction innovation for smoking relapse prevention. E-cigarettes meet the needs of some ex-smokers by substituting physical, psychological, social, cultural and identity-related aspects of tobacco addiction. Some vapers reported that they found vaping pleasurable and enjoyable—being more than a substitute but actually preferred, over time, to tobacco smoking. This clearly suggests that vaping is a viable long-term substitute for smoking, with substantial implications for tobacco harm reduction.

Objectives. To provide baseline cohort descriptives and assess change in health behaviours since the UK COVID-19 lockdown.Design. A prospective cohort (N = 1,044) of people recruited online, purposively targeting vulnerable populations.Methods. After a baseline survey (April 2020), participants completed 3 months of daily ecological momentary assessments (EMA). Dietary, physical activity, alcohol, smoking, vaping and substance use behaviours collected retrospectively for the pre-COVID-19 period were compared with daily EMA surveys over the first 30 days during early lockdown. Predictors of behaviour change were assessed using multivariable regression models.Results. 30% of the cohort had a COVID-19 at risk health condition, 37% were classed as deprived and 6% self-reported a mental health condition. Relative to pre-pandemic levels, participants ate almost one portion of fruit and vegetables less per day (vegetables mean difference À0.33, 95% CI À0.40, À0.25; fruit À0.57, 95% CI À0.64, À0.50), but showed no change in high sugar portions per day (À0.03, 95% CI À0.12, 0.06). Participants spent half a day less per week doing ≥30 min of moderate to vigorous physical activity (À0.57, 95% CI À0.73, À0.40) but slightly increased days of strength training (0.21, 95% CI 0.09, 0.34), increased alcohol intake (AUDIT-C score change 0.25, 95% CI 0.13, 0.37), though did not change smoking, vaping or substance use behaviour. Worsening health behaviour change was associated with being younger, female and higher body mass index.Conclusions. The cohort reported worsening health behaviours during early lockdown. Longer term changes will be investigated using further waves of data collection.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

BackgroundElectronic cigarettes (ECs) are electronic devices that heat a liquid into an aerosol for inhalation. The liquid usually comprises propylene glycol and glycerol, with or without nicotine and flavours, and stored in disposable or refillable cartridges or a reservoir. Since ECs appeared on the market in 2006 there has been a steady growth in sales. Smokers report using ECs to reduce risks of smoking, but some healthcare organizations, tobacco control advocacy groups and policy makers have been reluctant to encourage smokers to switch to ECs, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. Smokers, healthcare providers and regulators are interested to know if these devices can help smokers quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This review is an update of a review first published in 2014. ObjectivesTo evaluate the safety and effect of using ECs to help people who smoke achieve long-term smoking abstinence. Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CEN-TRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for relevant records from 2004 to January 2016, together with reference checking and contact with study authors. Selection criteriaWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which current smokers (motivated or unmotivated to quit) were randomized to EC or a control condition, and which measured abstinence rates at six months or longer. As the field of EC research is new, we also included cohort follow-up studies with at least six months follow-up. We included randomized cross-over trials, RCTs and cohort follow-up studies that included at least one week of EC use for assessment of adverse events (AEs). Data collection and analysisWe followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, and we used the most rigorous definition available (continuous, biochemically validated, longest follow-up). We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each study, and where appropriate we pooled data from these studies in meta-analyses.

Receiving a mental health diagnosis can be pivotal for service users, and it has been described in both positive and negative terms. What influences service-user experience of the diagnostic process is unclear; consequently, clinicians report uncertainty regarding best practice. This Review aims to understand and inform diagnostic practice through a comprehensive synthesis of qualitative data on views and experiences from key stakeholders (service users, clinicians, carers, and family). We searched five databases and identified 78 papers for inclusion, originating from 13 countries and including 2228 participants. Eligible papers were assessed for quality, and data were coded and then developed into themes, which generated a model representing factors to consider for clinicians conveying, and individuals receiving, mental health diagnoses. Themes included disclosure, information provision, collaboration, timing, stigma, and functional value of diagnosis for recovery. Variations between different stakeholders and clinical contexts are explored. Findings support an individualised, collaborative, and holistic approach to mental health diagnosis.

No abstract

No abstract