Cigarette or E-Cigarette Use as Strong Risk Factors for Heated Tobacco Product Use among Korean Adolescents
1
Department of Preventive Medicine, Catholic University of Daegu School of Medicine, Daegu 42472, Korea
2
Department of Statistics, College of Natural Sciences, Pukyong National University, Busan 48513, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(19), 7005; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197005
Submission received: 11 August 2020
/
Revised: 15 September 2020
/
Accepted: 23 September 2020
/
Published: 24 September 2020
Abstract
:Heated tobacco products (HTPs) were first introduced in Korea in June 2017. This study examined the prevalence of current HTP use among Korean adolescents and its association with conventional cigarette (CC) or electronic cigarette (EC) use. The study analyzed nationally representative data (the 2019 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey) from a sample of 57,303 Korean students from grades 7–12. Multinomial logistic regression models were designed to evaluate the association between EC or CC use and HTP use. A total of 2.6% of respondents were current HTP users and 95.9% of them were dual or triple users of CC or EC. The likelihood of HTP use was higher among current CC or EC users and highest among dual users. When the association between each tobacco product and current HTP use was analyzed, the dual use tendency of HTPs and other products steadily increased with the increase of CC or EC smoking frequency. Adolescents who use ECs and/or CCs are likely to use HTPs. Thus, HTPs could be a new public health concern for adolescents in terms of dual or triple use patterns of CC or EC.
1. Introduction
Heated tobacco products (HTPs) are electronic devices that generate nicotine-containing aerosol without combustion [1]. In 2014, Philip Morris International (PMI) launched an HTP named IQOS® in Italy and Japan [1]. Today, IQOS® is sold in approximately 50 countries [2]. In October 2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began permitting the sale of IQOS® through a premarket tobacco product application pathway in the United States [3]. Since the emergence of IQOS®, new products like glo® (by British American Tobacco) and lil® (by KT&G Corporation) have flooded the market. Tobacco companies market HTPs as a less harmful alternative to conventional cigarettes (CCs) [4]. During the modified risk tobacco products (MRTP) approval process, in July 2020, the FDA authorized marketing of IQOS® as an MRTP without fully reviewing sufficient data of their long-term health risks [5,6]. This authorization for IQOS® could be withdrawn depending on results from post-market surveillance and subsequent studies [6]. In addition, the FDA denied the risk modification order to significantly reduce harm and the risk of tobacco-related disease to individual tobacco users, one of two types of MRTP [6]. Therefore, to date, the debate over the health risks of HTPs is ongoing.
Although some tobacco companies, such as PMI, have publicly expressed their opposition to HTP use by adolescents [7], young people are easily exposed to HTP marketing strategies through social media [8]. Additionally, since HTPs are appealing to adolescents [9], it is necessary to investigate HTP use among adolescent. In Japan and Korea, limited research regarding HTP use among adults has been conducted and few studies have addressed HTP use among adolescents. Researchers have noted that most adult HTP users are dual users of CC and HTP, suggesting that HTPs are a complement to CC, not an alternative as claimed by tobacco companies [10,11,12]. Studies focused on HTP use by adolescents have assessed primarily their awareness or interest in HTPs. A Japanese study included 881 adolescents (10.7% of study participants) aged 15 to 19 years. However, no specific analysis regarding factors associated with HTP use for this age group was conducted. In addition, representation for the study is questionable because only online respondents were considered [12]. A study conducted in Korea revealed that 2.9% of Korean adolescents (men: 4.4%, women: 1.2%) were HTP ever users, most of whom were dual users of HTP and CC or triple users of HTP, CC, and electronic cigarettes (EC). However, due to the unavailability of data, it was not possible to assess current or former HTP use status and related factors in the aforementioned study [13]. Dual or poly-tobacco use among adolescents is a public health problem [14]. In research conducted with US adolescents, the probability of HTP use among EC users was reported to be higher than among cigarette smokers [15]. Therefore, in evaluating the related factors of HTP use, it is important to evaluate not only CC use but also EC use.
In Korea, the HTP market has experienced a rapid growth since the launch of IQOS® (in June 2017), along with other products, such as lil® and glo®. HTP use among Korean young adults reached 4.3% within one year of IQOS®’ release [10], surpassing that of Japanese young adults [12]. Moreover, the total sales of CCs decreased from 304 million packs to 276 million packs from June 2017 to September 2019, while sales of HTPs increased from 1.7 million packs to 30 million [16]. This suggests a significant change in the smoking behaviors of Korean adolescents.
The present study examined nationally representative data to reveal the prevalence of HTP use among Korean adolescents and the relationship of HTPs with the use of other tobacco products (CCs and ECs).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Population
This study used the secondary data of 2019 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey (KYRBS), a cross-sectional study conducted by the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC). A stratified multistage probability sampling was used to produce nationally representative statistics concerning health behaviors of Korean adolescents. Students from grades 7–12 anonymously completed a self-reported online survey. The survey was conducted from June to July 2019, two years after the introduction of HTP in Korea. A total of 57,303 students from 800 sample schools (400 junior high schools and 400 high schools) participated (response rate = 95.3%) [17]. The KYRBS was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the KCDC (2014-06EXP-02-P-A).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Tobacco Products Use
The present study examined the use of three types of tobacco products, including CCs, ECs, and HTPs. The participants were asked whether they had ever used the products, and ever users of each tobacco products were asked if they had used them within the past 30 days. Based on their responses, participants were categorized into current, former, or never users, respectively [11,18]. The 2019 KYRBS differed from previous years since it included a new question concerning current HTP use. The questions regarding HTPs were as follows: “Have you ever used HTPs (IQOS®, glo® or lil®)?” and “Within the past 30 days, how many days did you use HTPs (IQOS®, glo® or lil®), even just one puff?”. Respondents who had used HTPs within the past 30 days were defined as current HTP users, while those who had never used HTP were classified as never HTP users. Former HTP users were those who had used HTPs but not within the past 30 days. CC or EC users were similarly classified. For ECs, the participants were asked to answer the following questions: “Have you ever used nicotine-containing ECs?” and “Within the past 30 days, how many days did you use nicotine-containing ECs?” Two questions regarding CC use were “Have you ever tried cigarette smoking, even one or two puffs?” and “Within the past 30 days, how many days have you smoked cigarettes?” In addition, current CC or EC users were further classified according to their smoking frequencies by applying the criteria used by Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in the United States to classify youth smokers according to smoking frequency: <20 days/month, 20–29 days/month (current frequent cigarette use), and 30 days/month (current daily cigarette use) [19].
2.2.2. Other Characteristics
Covariates included sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, including sex, grade (7–12), residential area (metropolitan, small- or medium-sized city, or rural), stress level (low, moderate, or high), subjective academic performance (high, moderate, or low), perceived economic status (high, moderate, or low), and monthly alcohol consumption (yes or no).
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Weighted percentages of former and current HTP users were calculated. Moreover, the prevalence and proportion of poly-tobacco use within the past 30 days were calculated based on weighted percentages. Two different multivariate multinomial logistic regression models were designed to evaluate HTP use according to the following effects: (1) current CC and/or EC use and (2) experience of CC or EC use and smoking frequency. In model 1, HTP use was compared to current use of CC and/or EC. In model 2, HTP use status was compared separately according to experience of CC or EC use and frequency of smoking. Two models were designed because of an increment developed by the differences between prevalence of HTP use—0.1% in non-users and 62.9% in dual users—caused by nine categories considering the use status (current, former, or never) of CCs and ECs. For each model, former and current HTP users were compared with HTP never users (reference group) and former HTP users were compared with current HTP users (reference group). Each model was adjusted for all covariates. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
3. Results
Characteristics of study participants and their HTP use are shown in Table 1. Of all participants, 2.6% were current HTP users and 2.3% were former HTP users. First, the prevalence of current HTP use according to current CC or EC use was evaluated. The highest prevalence was among current dual users of CC and EC (62.9%), and the lowest was among non-users of CC and EC (0.1%). Second, the prevalence of current HTP users was examined according to the experience of CC or EC use and frequency of smoking. The prevalence of HTP use increased proportionately with increase CC and EC use. The prevalence of current HTP use among current EC users was higher than that of current CC users, and was highest among current daily EC users (73.0%). The highest prevalence of former HTP use among CC and EC users was observed in current daily CC users (22.3%) and former EC users (35.7%). The higher prevalence of former and/or current HTP use was associated with men, upper grades, high stress level, low academic performance and economic status, and monthly alcohol drinkers.
A total of 7.3% of all participants were current users of any tobacco products. Most of them were current CC-only users (46.3%), followed by triple users (22.7%), dual users of CC and EC (13.4%), and dual users of HTP and CC (9.1%). Of all current HTP users, only 4.1% were single users while the proportions of dual and triple users were 63.4% and 32.4%, respectively. A similar pattern was detected among current EC users, but not among CC users (Table 2).
Table 3 illustrates the results of multinomial logistic regression analyses that examined factors related to HTP use. Model revealed that CC-only users (adjusted odds Ratio [AOR] 106.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 79.62–142.71), EC only users (AOR 355.93, 95% CI 242.16–523.17), and dual users of CC and EC (AOR 885.21, 95% CI 661.49–1184.01) were more likely to be current HTP users than current non-CC and EC users. Similarly, current CC or EC use was associated with former HTP use, but there were no significant differences in AOR values between each group; AORs were 13.75 (95% CI 11.63–16.25), 13.76 (95% CI 9.11–20.79), and 14.62 (95% CI 11.55–18.50) for CC-only, EC-only, and dual users, respectively. AORs for former HTP users currently using CCs or ECs were lower compared to current HTP users, with their lowest AOR (0.02 (95% CI 0.01–0.02)) being among current dual users of CCs and ECs.
Model 2 revealed that AORs for current HTP users increased proportionately with CC or EC smoking frequency. The increment of AORs (by smoking frequency) was greater in current EC daily users (AOR 59.97, 95% CI 38.28–93.92) than in current CC daily users (AOR 31.79, 95% CI 22.67–44.58). Moreover, the likelihood of former HTP use was proportionately associated with CC smoking frequency; this pattern was not observed in EC users, showing the highest AOR, 16.91 (95% CI 13.58–21.05) in former EC users, but not in current EC users. Compared to current HTP users, AORs for former HTP users according to CC or EC use and smoking frequency were high: 8.22 (95% CI 5.23–12.91) in former CC users and 2.34 (95% CI 1.67–3.29) in former EC users. Regarding CC use, there were no statistically significant differences between never users and current users, regardless of smoking frequency. However, former HTP use was inversely proportionate to EC smoking frequency (lowest in those with current daily EC users: AOR 0.18, 95% CI 0.12–0.28 (Table 3).
4. Discussion
Our study showed that there was a rapid increase in interest toward HTPs and a high level of dual or triple use pattern of CC or EC. First, the prevalence of ever (former or current) and current HTP users among Korean adolescents was 4.9% and 2.6%, respectively, within two years of the launch of HTPs. Compared to the previous year (2.9%) [13], the prevalence of ever HTP users increased by approximately 1.8 times (2.0% p). Moreover, the 2019 prevalence of current HTP use among adolescents was slightly higher than among adults (2.1%) in 2018 from a study on Korean adults [10]. In addition, although a one year gap existed, the current HTP users among Korean adolescents (2.6%) is approximately half of current HTP use among individuals in their 20s (4.3%) from the aforementioned study [10], the group with the most HTP users [10]. The ratio between CC smoking rates of adolescents (6.7%) and people in their 20s (23.8%) was less than 0.3 in 2018 [20]. However, the ratio between the HTP smoking rates of adolescents and adults aged 20–29 was about 0.5, indicating adolescents’ early exposure to HTPs. Similarly, in Japan—one of the first countries introduced to IQOS®—the prevalence of current IQOS® users (in the first year after the launch) aged 15 to 19 years was 0.6%. However, use among the same participants increased to 2.3% one year later [12].
Adolescent responses to HTPs are presumably due to two factors. First, tobacco companies’ marketing strategies via social media are designed to appeal to young consumers [8,9,21]. Additionally, companies emphasize the reduction of tobacco smell as an advantage of HTPs [22]. Second, HTPs were introduced in the market shortly after the Korean government increased CC price by 80%, banned smoking in all restaurants, and made pictorial warning labels on cigarette packs mandatory [23]. These factors contributed to the success of IQOS®’ marketing strategy. Moreover, this might have influenced HTP use among adolescents.
The proportion of current HTP users who used CC or EC was surprisingly high (95.9%). This pattern of poly-tobacco use by adolescents was similarly observed in Korean adult HTP user (98.4%) [10]. HTP use was associated to current CC or EC use, especially among dual users. In addition, current HTP users who used CC or EC together were less likely to quit HTPs. Although the association of EC with HTP use among people aged 15 or older has not been evaluated in Japan, the association of current CC use with current HTP use was observed in our study, confirming earlier research [12].
The dual use pattern of HTPs and other tobacco products among adolescents differed from that of adults’ regarding frequency of CC smoking. While CC smoking frequency and the likelihood of HTP dual use were proportionately associated among adolescents, a similar trend was not detected among adults [10]. Thus, the likelihood of HTP dual use was directly proportional to CC smoking frequency among adults who smoked less than one pack per day, but it was inversely proportional among adults who smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day [10]. This difference could be because HTPs’ role as a complement to CC might be diminished among adult heavy smokers because their smoking habits are already established, while adolescents’ smoking habits are not, even among daily smokers [24]. Therefore, HTP use among adolescents is a new public health concern, as it can lead to dual or triple use of tobacco products, especially because dual or poly-tobacco use patterns among adolescents have been commonly reported [15,25,26]. However, targeted regulation of certain tobacco products might result in an increase in the use of other tobacco products. For example, strengthening regulation for CC could lead to a trend in HTP use among adolescents. Since HTP use among adolescents is not recommended for any purpose and dual or poly-tobacco use with HTP could pose significant health risks, in order to prevent it, comprehensive tobacco control policies are needed for all tobacco products.
Regarding the association of HTP use with CCs and ECs, current use of CC was not associated with the possibility of HTP cessation, compared with never CC users. Considering different perceptions of tobacco products among adolescents [27], their intentions and self-defined reasons for using CCs or ECs along with HTPs might vary. Further, ECs and HTPs have been accepted by adolescents as mutually complementary, so their using pattern correlates as either increasing (dual current use) or decreasing (dual former use). This phenomenon could be because HTPs are recognized as a type of ECs in Korea [21]. For example, a widely accepted term of HTP was “cigarette-type EC” in Korea, instead of “heat-not-burn” or “heated tobacco products”, and this makes it difficult to distinguish between ECs and HTPs. Moreover, results showed that current HTP use had a stronger association with current EC use than current CC use. Further, although HTPs are not completely complementary to CCs, HTP is not an alternative for CC, as shown in previous studies with Korean adult [10] because current CC use had no differential impact between current and former HTP users. This is further supported by our study: (1) most HTP users were concurrently using CCs, and (2) current CC users were more likely to be dual users of HTPs. Contrarily, the odds ratio for current HTP use was significantly higher in former CC users than in CC never users, which might suggest that HTP supplements efforts to quit CC use. However, since this study was a cross-sectional study and there was no information available on the association of the timing of smoking cessation with HTP use, it was not possible to understand the causal relationship between them. In addition, the OR value of HTP use among former CC users was much lower than that of current CC users, and most HTP users were dual CC users, which suggests that HTP use has little influence on CC use cessation among adolescents.
The present study has several limitations. First, the causal relationship between HTP use and EC or CC use could not be determined because KYRBS was a cross-sectional survey. Second, the use of tobacco products may have been underestimated since KYRBS is a self-reported survey [28]. It can be presumed that false negative responses about each tobacco product exist, regardless of product type. However, although adolescents tend to conceal their CC smoking experience, they are more likely to respond truthfully about HTP use due to their public acceptance. In such cases, the dual use pattern of HTPs and CCs shown in this study might have been underestimated. Moreover, false negative responses may not meaningfully affect the overall result since the strength of the association of HTP use with CC use was significant.
Despite these limitations, the major strengths of this study include its first examination of the prevalence of current HTP use and the association of other tobacco products with HTP use, analyzing nationally representative data of a large sample of over 57,000 adolescents. Considering the worldwide spread of HTPs, our study results can contribute to the development of tobacco control policies for new tobacco products.
5. Conclusions
A total of 2.6% of Korean adolescents were found to be current HTP users, and most of them (95.9%) were dual or triple users of CC or EC. The likelihood of current HTP use was higher among current CC or EC users, especially dual users or those with higher smoking frequency. Our study result suggests that HTPs, along with other tobacco products, might become a public health concern for adolescents. In order to prevent smoking in adolescents, it is essential to establish comprehensive tobacco control policies for various tobacco products.
Author Contributions
All the authors participated in the interpretation of the results and contributed to the writing of the manuscript. J.H.H. analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. S.-W.P. designed the study and critically revised the manuscript. D.H.R. interpreted the results and contributed to the critical revision of the manuscript. I.P. analyzed the data and interpreted the results. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by research grants from Daegu Catholic University in 2019.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
References
- Liu, X.; Lugo, A.; Spizzichino, L.; Tabuchi, T.; Pacifici, R.; Gallus, S. Heat-not-burn tobacco products: Concerns from the Italian experience. Tob. Control 2019, 28, 113–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philip Morris International. Our Tobacco Heating System. IQOS. Available online: https://www.Pmi.Com/smoke-free-products/iqos-our-tobacco-heating-system (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Permits Sale of IQOS Tobacco Heating System through Premarket Tobacco Product Application Pathway. Available online: https://www.Fda.Gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-permits-sale-iqos-tobacco-heating-system-through-premarket-tobacco-product-application-pathway (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Philip Morris International. Designing a Smoke-Free Future. Available online: https://www.Pmiscience.Com/smoke-free (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Lempert, L.K.; Glantz, S. Analysis of FDA’s IQOS marketing authorisation and its policy impacts. Tob. Control 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Authorizes Marketing of IQOS Tobacco Heating System with ‘Reduced Exposure’ Information. Available online: https://www.Fda.Gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-authorizes-marketing-iqos-tobacco-heating-system-reduced-exposure-information (accessed on 28 August 2020).
- Philip Morris International. Nicotine and Youth. 2019. Available online: https://www.Pmi.Com/smoke-free-life/youth-and-nicotine (accessed on 6 April 2020).
- Kreitzberg, D.S.; Murthy, D.; Loukas, A.; Pasch, K.E. Heat Not Burn Tobacco Promotion on Instagram. Addict. Behav. 2019, 91, 112–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKelvey, K.; Popova, L.; Kim, M.; Chaffee, B.W.; Vijayaraghavan, M.; Ling, P.; Halpern-Felsher, B. Heated tobacco products likely appeal to adolescents and young adults. Tob. Control 2018, 27, s41–s47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hwang, J.H.; Ryu, D.H.; Park, S.W. Heated tobacco products: Cigarette complements, not substitutes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019, 204, 107576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, J.; Yu, H.; Lee, S.; Paek, Y.J. Awareness, experience and prevalence of heated tobacco product, IQOS, among young Korean adults. Tob. Control 2018, 27, s74–s77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tabuchi, T.; Gallus, S.; Shinozaki, T.; Nakaya, T.; Kunugita, N.; Colwell, B. Heat-not-burn tobacco product use in Japan: Its prevalence, predictors and perceived symptoms from exposure to secondhand heat-not-burn tobacco aerosol. Tob. Control 2018, 27, e25–e33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kang, S.Y.; Lee, S.; Cho, H.J. Prevalence and predictors of heated tobacco product use and its relationship with attempts to quit cigarette smoking among Korean adolescents. Tob. Control 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, T.W.; Gentzke, A.S.; Creamer, M.R.; Cullen, K.A.; Holder-Hayes, E.; Sawdey, M.D.; Anic, G.M.; Portnoy, D.B.; Hu, S.; Homa, D.M.; et al. Tobacco product use and associated factors among middle and high school students-United States, 2019. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 2019, 68, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dai, H. Heated tobacco product use and associated factors among U.S. Youth, 2019. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020, 214, 108150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Strategy and Finance. Trends in Tobacco Market on the 3rd Quarter. 2019. Available online: https://www.Moef.Go.Kr/nw/nes/detailnesdtaview.Do?Menuno=4010100&searchnttid=mosf_000000000030402&searchbbsid=mosfbbs_000000000028 (accessed on 10 April 2020).
- Ministry of Education; Ministry of Health & Welfare; Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 14th Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-Based Survey, 2019; Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Chungwon, Korea, 2019.
- Wang, J.B.; Olgin, J.E.; Nah, G.; Vittinghoff, E.; Cataldo, J.K.; Pletcher, M.J.; Marcus, G.M. Cigarette and e-cigarette dual use and risk of cardiopulmonary symptoms in the Health eHeart Study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0198681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in the Prevalence of Tobacco Use National YRBS: 1991–2019. Available online: https://www.Cdc.Gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/factsheets/2019_tobacco_trend_yrbs.Htm (accessed on 29 August 2020).
- Ministry of Health and Welfare; Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Korea Health Statistics 2018: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES vii-3); Ministry of Health and Welfare: Sejong, Korea, 2018.
- Kim, M. Philip Morris International introduces new heat-not-burn product, IQOS, in South Korea. Tob. Control 2018, 27, e76–e78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philip Morris International. Can IQOS Help Me Get Rid of Cigarette Smell? Available online: https://es.Iqos.Com/en/news/can-iqos-help-get-rid-of-cigarette-smell (accessed on 24 April 2020).
- Kang, H.; Cho, S.I. Cohort effects of tobacco control policy: Evidence to support a tobacco-free norm through smoke-free policy. Tob. Control 2020, 29, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choi, W.S.; Gilpin, E.A.; Farkas, A.J.; Pierce, J.P. Determining the probability of future smoking among adolescents. Addiction 2001, 96, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, S.; Grana, R.A.; Glantz, S.A. Electronic cigarette use among Korean adolescents: A cross-sectional study of market penetration, dual use, and relationship to quit attempts and former smoking. J. Adolesc. Health 2014, 54, 684–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Creamer, M.R.; Everett Jones, S.; Gentzke, A.S.; Jamal, A.; King, B.A. Tobacco product use among high school students—Youth risk behavior survey, United States, 2019. MMWR Suppl. 2020, 69, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roditis, M.; Delucchi, K.; Cash, D.; Halpern-Felsher, B. Adolescents’ perceptions of health risks, social risks, and benefits differ across tobacco products. J. Adolesc. Health 2016, 58, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hwang, J.H.; Kim, J.Y.; Lee, D.H.; Jung, H.G.; Park, S.W. Underestimation of self-reported smoking prevalence in Korean adolescents: Evidence from gold standard by combined method. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants and heated tobacco products use according to characteristics.
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants and heated tobacco products use according to characteristics.
| Full Sample | HTP Use | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Weighted % a | Former User (Weighted %) | Current User b (Weighted %) | |
| Total | 57,303 | 100.0 | 2.3% | 2.6% |
| Tobacco products use | ||||
| <Classification 1: according to current CC/EC-use> | ||||
| Non-users | 53,334 | 92.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 |
| CC only | 2251 | 4.0 | 21.8 | 16.4 |
| EC only | 276 | 0.5 | 14.6 | 36.1 |
| Dual users | 1442 | 2.6 | 11.0 | 62.9 |
| <Classification 2: according to CC/EC-use and smoking frequency> | ||||
| CC-use | ||||
| Never | 50,227 | 87.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Former | 3383 | 6.0 | 15.7 | 1.6 |
| Current (<20days/month) | 1652 | 2.9 | 12.3 | 21.9 |
| Current (20–29days/month) | 331 | 0.6 | 18.2 | 34.7 |
| Current (30days/month) | 1710 | 3.2 | 22.3 | 46.7 |
| EC-use | ||||
| Never | 53,268 | 92.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
| Former | 2317 | 4.3 | 35.7 | 10.7 |
| Current (<20days/month) | 1276 | 2.3 | 11.6 | 54.6 |
| Current (20–29days/month) | 112 | 0.2 | 13.1 | 59.6 |
| Current (30days/month) | 330 | 0.6 | 11.3 | 73.0 |
| Socio-demographics | ||||
| Sex | ||||
| Men | 29,841 | 52.0 | 3.6 | 4.0 |
| Women | 27,462 | 48.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 |
| Grade | ||||
| 7th | 9738 | 15.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| 8th | 9665 | 15.3 | 1.0 | 1.2 |
| 9th | 9981 | 16.6 | 2.2 | 1.6 |
| 10th | 9273 | 17.1 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| 11th | 9044 | 16.5 | 3.2 | 4.4 |
| 12th | 9602 | 18.5 | 3.8 | 4.9 |
| Residential area | ||||
| Metropolitan | 29,356 | 50.7 | 2.3 | 2.6 |
| small- or medium-sized city | 24,380 | 44.8 | 2.4 | 2.7 |
| Rural | 3567 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 2.0 |
| Stress level | ||||
| High | 22,778 | 39.9 | 2.5 | 3.2 |
| Moderate | 23,403 | 41.0 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
| Low | 11,122 | 19.1 | 2.1 | 2.6 |
| Subjective academic performance | ||||
| High | 21,943 | 38.1 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Moderate | 17,234 | 30.1 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Low | 18,126 | 31.8 | 3.5 | 4.1 |
| Perceived economic status | ||||
| High | 22,505 | 39.7 | 2.2 | 2.6 |
| Moderate | 27,457 | 47.8 | 2.2 | 2.2 |
| Low | 7341 | 12.5 | 3.2 | 4.2 |
| Monthly Alcohol consumption | ||||
| Yes | 48,903 | 85.0 | 8.3 | 13.6 |
| No | 8400 | 15.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 |
a Rows may not be added up to 100% due to rounding. b Current use of heated tobacco products indicates its use within the past 30 days. Abbreviations: HTP, heated tobacco product; EC, electronic cigarette; CC, conventional cigarette.
Table 2.
Poly-tobacco use (current use of two or more tobacco products) patterns of three tobacco products among tobacco product users.
Table 2.
Poly-tobacco use (current use of two or more tobacco products) patterns of three tobacco products among tobacco product users.
| Prevalence (Weighted %) | Proportion (Weighted %) a | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | HTP | EC | CC | ||
| Any tobacco products | 7.3 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Single users | |||||
| HTP only | 0.1 | 1.5 | 4.1 | - | - |
| EC only | 0.3 | 4.5 | - | 10.4 | - |
| CC only | 3.4 | 46.3 | - | - | 50.6 |
| Dual users | |||||
| HTP & CC | 0.7 | 9.1 | 25.3 | - | 9.9 |
| HTP & EC | 0.2 | 2.5 | 7.1 | 5.9 | - |
| CC & EC | 1.0 | 13.4 | - | 31.1 | 14.7 |
| Triple users (HTP, EC & CC) | 1.7 | 22.7 | 63.4 | 52.6 | 24.8 |
a Rows may not be added up to 100% due to rounding. Abbreviations: HTP, heated tobacco product; EC, electronic cigarette; CC, conventional cigarette.
Table 3.
Evaluation of status of heated tobacco products use according to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes use pattern from multinomial logistic regression model.
Table 3.
Evaluation of status of heated tobacco products use according to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes use pattern from multinomial logistic regression model.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current a versus Never HTP | Former versus Never HTP | Former versus Current a HTP | Current a versus Never HTP | Former versus Never HTP | Former versus Current a HTP | |
| AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) | |
| Tobacco products use | ||||||
| <Classification1: according to current CC/EC-use> | ||||||
| Non-users | Ref | Ref | Ref | - | - | - |
| CC only | 106.60 (79.62–142.71) | 13.75 (11.63–16.25) | 0.13 (0.09–0.18) | - | - | - |
| EC only | 355.93 (242.16–523.17) | 13.76 (9.11–20.79) | 0.04 (0.02–0.06) | - | - | - |
| Dual users | 885.21 (661.49–1184.01b) | 14.62 (11.55–18.50) | 0.02 (0.01–0.02) | - | - | - |
| <Classification 2: according to CC/EC-use and smoking frequency> | ||||||
| CC-use | ||||||
| Never | - | - | - | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Former | - | - | - | 1.94 (1.34–2.81) | 15.93 (12.03–21.09) | 8.22 (5.23–12.91) |
| Current (<20days/month) | - | - | - | 14.16 (10.01–20.01) | 13.95 (10.15–19.16) | 0.99 (0.62–1.57) |
| Current (20–29days/month) | - | - | - | 20.47 (12.59–33.28) | 22.32 (14.22–35.02) | 1.09 (0.62–1.92) |
| Current (30days/month) | - | - | - | 31.79 (22.67–44.58) | 34.01 (25.12–46.04) | 1.07 (0.69–1.67) |
| EC-use | ||||||
| Never | - | - | - | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Former | - | - | - | 7.22 (5.41–9.65) | 16.91 (13.58–21.05) | 2.34 (1.67–3.29) |
| Current (<20days/month) | - | - | - | 34.54 (25.28–47.18) | 8.04 (6.01–10.77) | 0.23 (0.16–0.34) |
| Current (20–29days/month) | - | - | - | 37.15 (20.01–68.99) | 8.81 (4.32–17.96) | 0.24 (0.12–0.47) |
| Current (30days/month) | - | - | - | 59.97 (38.28–93.92) | 10.68 (6.61–17.25) | 0.18 (0.12–0.28) |
| Sociodemographics | ||||||
| Sex | ||||||
| Men | 2.11 (1.77–2.53) | 3.1 (2.65–3.64) | 1.47 (1.17–1.85) | 1.73 (1.41–2.12) | 1.47 (1.23–1.76) | 0.85 (0.67–1.08) |
| Women | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Grade | ||||||
| 7th | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 8th | 2.26 (1.21–4.24) | 1.99 (1.33–2.96) | 0.88 (0.43–1.78) | 2.35 (1.25–4.40) | 1.25 (0.80–1.96) | 0.53 (0.26–1.09) |
| 9th | 2.34 (1.27–4.31) | 3.80 (2.60–5.54) | 1.62 (0.81–3.24) | 2.09 (1.13–3.88) | 1.57 (1.04–2.36) | 0.75 (0.37–1.51) |
| 10th | 3.23 (1.77–5.89) | 4.19 (2.89–6.07) | 1.30 (0.66–2.55) | 2.84 (1.54–5.21) | 1.73 (1.18–2.53) | 0.61 (0.31–1.19) |
| 11th | 4.77 (2.61–8.73) | 4.06 (2.82–5.84) | 0.85 (0.43–1.66) | 4.18 (2.27–7.70) | 1.59 (1.09–2.31) | 0.38 (0.20–0.74) |
| 12th | 4.91 (2.71–8.93) | 4.61 (3.20–6.66) | 0.94 (0.48–1.83) | 3.97 (2.17–7.28) | 1.72 (1.18–2.51) | 0.43 (0.22–0.84) |
| Area | ||||||
| Metropolitan) | 1.07 (0.72–1.59) | 1.10 (0.80–1.51) | 1.03 (0.66–1.61) | 0.89 (0.58–1.36) | 0.87 (0.61–1.25) | 0.98 (0.64–1.51) |
| Small- or medium-sized city | 1.07 (0.72–1.59) | 1.07 (0.78–1.48) | 1.00 (0.64–1.57) | 0.93 (0.61–1.42) | 0.88 (0.61–1.27) | 0.95 (0.61–1.47) |
| Rural | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Stress level | ||||||
| High | 1.00 (0.81–1.22) | 1.14 (0.95–1.37) | 1.15 (0.90–1.46) | 0.95 (0.76–1.19) | 0.97 (0.79–1.18) | 1.01 (0.79–1.31) |
| Moderate | 0.83 (0.65–1.06) | 1.11 (0.95–1.31) | 1.35 (1.02–1.77) | 0.76 (0.58–1.01) | 0.98 (0.81–1.19) | 1.29 (0.96–1.74) |
| Low | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Subjective academic performance | ||||||
| High | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Moderate | 0.80 (0.64–0.99) | 1.09 (0.91–1.30) | 1.37 (1.08–1.74) | 0.78 (0.61–1.00) | 0.95 (0.77–1.18) | 1.22 (0.95–1.57) |
| Low | 0.97 (0.80–1.19) | 1.36 (1.13–1.63) | 1.39 (1.11–1.75) | 0.83 (0.65–1.06) | 0.93 (0.76–1.14) | 1.13 (0.88–1.43) |
| Perceived economic status | ||||||
| High | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Moderate | 0.82 (0.69–0.97) | 0.90 (0.78–1.03) | 1.10 (0.90–1.34) | 0.83 (0.69–1.01) | 0.93 (0.78–1.10) | 1.11 (0.9–1.38) |
| Low | 0.93 (0.75–1.15) | 1.00 (0.82–1.21) | 1.07 (0.84–1.36) | 0.93 (0.73–1.20) | 0.97 (0.79–1.20) | 1.04 (0.8–1.35) |
| Monthly Alcohol consumption | ||||||
| Yes | 2.61 (2.19–3.11) | 2.54 (2.20–2.94) | 0.98 (0.78–1.21) | 2.42 (1.99–2.94) | 1.47 (1.27–1.69) | 0.61 (0.49–0.76) |
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
Abbreviations: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; HTP, heated tobacco product; EC, electronic cigarette; CC, conventional cigarette. Models 1 and 2 were adjusted for all covariates (sex, grade, residential area, stress level, subjective academic performance, perceived economic status, and monthly alcohol consumption). Bold characters indicate significant associations (p < 0.05). a Current use of Heated tobacco products or e-cigarette indicate its use within the past 30 days. b Upper limit of confidence interval was not provided (reported as >999.999) so that the figure was obtained by calculation using Wald test: exponential value of (estimate +1.96 standard error).
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Hwang, J.H.; Ryu, D.H.; Park, I.; Park, S.-W. Cigarette or E-Cigarette Use as Strong Risk Factors for Heated Tobacco Product Use among Korean Adolescents. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197005
AMA Style
Hwang JH, Ryu DH, Park I, Park S-W. Cigarette or E-Cigarette Use as Strong Risk Factors for Heated Tobacco Product Use among Korean Adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(19):7005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197005
Chicago/Turabian StyleHwang, Jun Hyun, Dong Hee Ryu, Inho Park, and Soon-Woo Park. 2020. "Cigarette or E-Cigarette Use as Strong Risk Factors for Heated Tobacco Product Use among Korean Adolescents" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 19: 7005. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197005
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
