Do Electronic Cigarettes Increase Cigarette Smoking in UK Adolescents? Evidence from a 12-month Prospective Study

Background In cross-sectional surveys, increasing numbers of adolescents report using both electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) and cigarettes. This study assessed whether adolescent e-cigarette use was associated prospectively with initiation or escalation of cigarette use. Methods Data were from 2836 adolescents (aged 13–14 years at baseline) in 20 schools in England. At baseline, breath carbon monoxide levels, self-reported e-cigarette and cigarette use, sex, age, friends and family smoking, beliefs about cigarette use and percentage receiving free school meals (measure of socioeconomic status) were assessed. At 12-month follow-up, self-reported cigarette use was assessed and validated by breath carbon monoxide levels. Results At baseline, 34.2% of adolescents reported ever using e-cigarettes (16.0% used only e-cigarettes). Baseline ever use of e-cigarettes was strongly associated with subsequent initiation (n=1726; OR 5.38, 95% CI 4.02 to 7.22; controlling for covariates, OR 4.06, 95% CI 2.94 to 5.60) and escalation (n=318; OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.21; controlling for covariates, this effect became non-significant, OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.82) of cigarette use. Conclusions This is the first study to report prospective relationships between ever use of e-cigarettes and initiation and escalation of cigarette use among UK adolescents. Ever use of e-cigarettes was robustly associated with initiation but more modestly related to escalation of cigarette use. Further research with longer follow-up in a broader age range of adolescents is required

Association between age at first reported e-cigarette use and subsequent regular e-cigarette, ever cigarette and regular cigarette use

Background and aims Association of electronic cigarette use and subsequent smoking has received considerable attention, although age of first use has not. This study tested differences in regular (e-cigarettes, cigarettes) and ever (cigarettes) use between e-cigarette user groups: early versus never users, late versus never users, early versus late users and effects of controlling for covariates. Design Prospective study with 12- and 24-month follow-up of e-cigarette/cigarette ever/regular use with data from an intervention. Setting Forty-five schools in England (Staffordshire and Yorkshire). Participants Never smokers (3289 13–14-year-olds) who were part of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Measurements The sample was divided into groups of e-cigarette users: early users (at 13–14 years), late users (at 14–15 years) and never users (at 13–14 and 14–15 years). Dependent variables were self-reported regular e-cigarette and cigarette use and ever cigarette use at 15–16 years. Covariates were assessed. Findings Early and late users compared with never users were significantly more likely to be regular e-cigarette users [early: odds ratio (OR) = 9.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.38, 16.49, P < 0.001; late: OR = 6.89, 95% CI = 4.11, 11.54, P < 0.001], ever cigarette users (early: OR = 7.96, 95% CI = 6.02, 10.53, P < 0.001; late: OR = 5.13, 95% CI = 3.85, 6.84, P < 0.001) and regular cigarette users (early: OR = 7.80, 95% CI = 3.99, 15.27, P < 0.001; late: OR = 4.34, 95% CI = 1.93, 9.77, P < 0.001) at age 15–16 years. Late users compared with early users had significantly lower rates of ever use of cigarettes at 15–16 years (OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.35, 0.66, P < 0.001), although this difference was non-significant at 12 months after first use of e-cigarettes (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.64, 1.25, P = 0.498). Controlling for covariates did not change the findings. Conclusions Adolescents in England who report using e-cigarettes at age 13–14 years have higher rates of subsequently initiating cigarette use than adolescents who report using e-cigarettes at age 14–15 years, a difference that may be attributable to a longer period of time to initiate cigarette use in former group

What behavior change techniques are associated with effective interventions to reduce screen time in 0-5 year olds? A narrative systematic review.

Screen time has been linked to obesity in young children. Therefore, this systematic review aims to investigate which Behavior Change Techniques (BCTs) are associated with the effectiveness of interventions to reduce screen time in 0-5 year olds. Seven databases were searched, including PsycInfo, PubMed, and Medline. Grey literature searches were conducted. Inclusion criteria were interventions reporting pre- and post- outcomes with the primary objective of reducing screen time in 0-5 year olds. Studies were quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project criteria. Data extracted included participant characteristics, intervention characteristics and screen time outcomes. The BCT Taxonomy was used to extract BCTs. Interventions were categorised as “very”, “quite” or “non” promising based on effect sizes. BCTs were deemed promising if they were in twice as many very/quite promising interventions as non-promising interventions. Seven randomised controlled trials were included, involving 642 participants between 2.5-5.0 years old. One very promising, four quite promising, and two non-promising interventions were identified. Screen time decreased by 25-39 minutes per day in very/quite promising interventions. Eleven BCTs were deemed promising, including “behavior substitution” and “information about social and environmental consequences”. This review identified eleven promising BCTs, which should be incorporated into future screen time interventions with young children. However, most included studies were of weak quality and limited by the populations targeted. Therefore, future methodologically rigorous interventions targeting at-risk populations with higher screen time, such as those of a low socioeconomic status and children with a high BMI, should be prioritized

A qualitative study of cardiovascular disease risk communication in NHS Health Check using different risk calculators: protocol for the RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) study. BMC family practice, 20(1), 11.

Background NHS Health Check is a national cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment programme for 40–74 year olds in England, in which practitioners should assess and communicate CVD risk, supported by appropriate risk-management advice and goal-setting. This requires effective communication, to equip patients with knowledge and intention to act. Currently, the QRISK®2 10-year CVD risk score is most common way in which CVD risk is estimated. Newer tools, such as JBS3, allow manipulation of risk factors and can demonstrate the impact of positive actions. However, the use, and relative value, of these tools within CVD risk communication is unknown. We will explore practitioner and patient CVD risk perceptions when using QRISK®2 or JBS3, the associated advice or treatment offered by the practitioner, and patients’ responses. Methods RIsk COmmunication in NHS Health Check (RICO) is a qualitative study with quantitative process evaluation. Twelve general practices in the West Midlands of England will be randomised to one of two groups: usual practice, in which practitioners use QRISK®2 to assess and communicate CVD risk; intervention, in which practitioners use JBS3. Twenty Health Checks per practice will be video-recorded (n = 240, 120 per group), with patients stratified by age, gender and ethnicity. Post-Health Check, video-stimulated recall (VSR) interviews will be conducted with 48 patients (n = 24 per group) and all practitioners (n = 12–18), using video excerpts to enhance participant recall/reflection. Patient medical record reviews will detect health-protective actions in the first 12-weeks following a Health Check (e.g., lifestyle referrals, statin prescription). Risk communication, patient response and intentions for health-protective behaviours in each group will be explored through thematic analysis of video-recorded Health Checks (using Protection Motivation Theory as a framework) and VSR interviews. Process evaluation will include between-group comparisons of quantitatively coded Health Check content and post-Health Check patient outcomes. Finally, 10 patients with the most positive intentions or behaviours will be selected for case study analysis (using all data sources). Discussion This study will produce novel insights about the utility of QRISK®2 and JBS3 to promote patient and practitioner understanding and perception of CVD risk and associated implications for patient intentions with respect to health-protective behaviours (and underlying mechanisms). Recommendations for practice will be developed

Psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis

Background: Adherence to treatment, including inhaled therapies, is low in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). Although psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF have been developed, no previous published systematic review has evaluated the evidence for efficacy of these interventions. Objectives: The primary objective of the review was to assess the efficacy of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). The secondary objective was to establish the most effective components, or behaviour change techniques (BCTs), used in these interventions. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, which is compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched databases (PubMed; PsycINFO; EBSCO; Scopus; OpenGrey), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, with no restrictions on language, year or publication status. Date of search: 7 August 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of psychological interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF of any age, or comparing psychological interventions with usual care. We included quasi-RCTs if we could reasonably assume that the baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and completed data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and BCT coding (using the BCT Taxonomy v1) for all included trials. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or by consultation with a third review author as necessary. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Main results: We included 10 trials (1642 participants) in the review (children and adolescents in four trials; adults in five trials; and children and adults in one trial). Nine trials compared a psychological intervention with usual care; we could combine data from some of these in a number of quantitative analyses. One trial compared a psychological intervention with an active comparator (education plus problem-solving (EPS)). We identified five ongoing trials. Psychological interventions were generally multi-component and complex, containing an average of 9.6 BCTs (range 1 to 28). The two most commonly used BCTs included 'problem-solving' and 'instruction on how to perform the behaviour'. Interventions varied in their type, content and mode of delivery. They included a problem-solving intervention; a paper-based self-management workbook; a telehealth intervention; a group training programme; a digital intervention comprising medication reminders and lung function self-monitoring; a life-coaching intervention; a motivational interviewing (MI) intervention; a brief MI intervention (behaviour change counselling); and a digital intervention combined with behaviour change sessions. Intervention duration ranged from 10 weeks to 12 months. Assessment time points ranged from six to eight weeks up to 23 months. Psychological interventions compared with usual care. We report data here for the 'over six months and up to 12 months' time point. We found that psychological interventions probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies (primary outcome) in people with CF compared with usual care (mean difference (MD) 9.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 10.40; 1 study, 588 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in our second primary outcome, treatment-related adverse events: anxiety (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to 1.00; 1 study, 535 participants), or depression (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.60; 1 study, 534 participants), although this was low-certainty evidence. For our secondary outcomes, there was no evidence of a difference between groups in terms of lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted MD 1.40, 95% CI -0.20 to 3.00; 1 study, 556 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); number of pulmonary exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.11; 1 study, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); or respiratory symptoms (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.40 to 3.80; 1 study, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, psychological interventions may improve treatment burden (MD 3.90, 95% CI 1.20 to 6.60; 1 study, 539 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate across these outcomes. Reasons for downgrading included indirectness (current evidence included adults only whereas our review question was broader and focused on people of any age) and lack of blinding of outcome assessors. Psychological interventions compared with an active comparator. For this comparison the overall certainty of evidence was very low, based on one trial (n = 128) comparing an MI intervention to EPS for 12 months. We are uncertain whether an MI intervention, compared with EPS, improves adherence to inhaled therapies, lung function, or quality of life in people with CF, or whether there is an effect on pulmonary exacerbations. The included trial for this comparison did not report on treatment-related adverse events (anxiety and depression). We downgraded all reported outcomes due to small participant numbers, indirectness (trials included only adults), and unclear risk of bias (e.g. selection and attrition bias). Authors' conclusions: Due to the limited quantity of trials included in this review, as well as the clinical and methodological heterogeneity, it was not possible to identify an overall intervention effect using meta-analysis. Some moderate-certainty evidence suggests that psychological interventions (compared with usual care) probably improve adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF, without increasing treatment-related adverse events, anxiety and depression (low-certainty evidence). In future review updates (with ongoing trial results included), we hope to be able to establish the most effective BCTs (or 'active ingredients') of interventions for improving adherence to inhaled therapies in people with CF. Wherever possible, investigators should make use of the most objective measures of adherence available (e.g. data-logging nebulisers) to accurately determine intervention effects. Outcome reporting needs to be improved to enable combining or separation of measures as appropriate. Likewise, trial reporting needs to include details of intervention content (e.g. BCTs used); duration; intensity; and fidelity. Large trials with a longer follow-up period (e.g. 12 months) are needed in children with CF. Additionally, more research is needed to determine how to support adherence in 'under-served' CF populations

Evidence that an intervention weakens the relationship between adolescent electronic cigarette use and tobacco smoking: a 24-month prospective study

Background: The electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use to subsequent smoking relationship in adolescents has received much attention. Whether an intervention to reduce smoking initiation attenuated this relationship was assessed. Method: Data were from 3994 adolescent never smokers (aged 13–14 years at baseline) as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Self-report measures of smoking, e-cigarette use and covariates were assessed and used to predict ever smoked cigarettes, any recent tobacco smoking and regularly smoked cigarettes at 24-month follow-up. Results: Baseline ever use of e-cigarettes was associated with ever smoked cigarettes (OR=4.03, 95% CI 3.33 to 4.88; controlling for covariates, OR=2.78, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.51), any recent tobacco smoking (OR=3.38, 95% CI 2.72 to 4.21; controlling for covariates, OR=2.17, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.69) and regularly smoked cigarettes (OR=3.60, 95% CI 2.35 to 5.51; controlling for covariates, OR=1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39) at follow-up. For ever smoked cigarettes only, the impact of e-cigarette use was attenuated in the intervention (OR=1.83) compared with control (OR=4.53) condition. For ever smoked cigarettes and any recent tobacco smoking, the impact of e-cigarette use was attenuated among those with friends who smoked (OR=2.05 (ever smoked); 1·53 (any tobacco use)) compared with those without friends who smoked (OR=3.32 (ever smoked); 2·17 (any tobacco use)). Conclusions: This is one of the first studies to show that e-cigarette use was robustly associated with measures of smoking over 24 months and the first to show an intervention to attenuate the relationship. Further research with a broader age range of adolescents is required

Patterns and predictors of e-cigarette, cigarette and dual use uptake in UK adolescents: Evidence from a 24-month prospective study

Background and Aims: To assess prevalence and predictors of e-cigarettes/cigarettes patterns of use in adolescents in England. Design: Prospective study with 24-month follow-up of e-cigarette/cigarette ever/regular use with data from an intervention evaluation. Setting: Forty-five schools in England (Staffordshire and Yorkshire). Participants: 3,210 adolescents who, at baseline, were aged 13-14 years and had never used e-cigarettes/cigarettes. Measurements: Based on e-cigarette/cigarette ever use at follow-up, six groups were created: (a) never user, (b) e-cigarette only, (c) cigarette only, (d) dual use – order of use unclear, (e) dual use – e-cigarettes used first, (f) dual use – cigarettes used first. Baseline measures were: gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, impulsivity, family plus friend smoking, and smoking-related beliefs (attitude and perceived behavioural control). Findings: In groups (a) through (f), there were 71·5%, 13·3%, 3·3%, 5·7%, 2·9%, and 3·4% adolescents, respectively. Among groups using cigarettes, regular smoking was more prevalent in group (f) (dual use – cigarettes used first) (17·6%, 95%CI 10·4, 24·8) than in groups (c), (d) and (e) combined (7·3%, 95%CI 4·7, 9·9). Among groups using e-cigarettes, regular use was less prevalent in group (b) (e-cigarette only) (1·9%, 95%CI 0·6, 3·2) than in groups (d), (e) and (f) combined (12·2%, 95%CI 8·9, 15·5). Higher impulsivity plus friends and family smoking were predictive of being in groups (b) to (f) compared with group (a) (never users). Males were more likely to be in group (b) compared to group (a); females were more likely to be in groups (c) to (f) compared to group (a). Conclusions: Regular use of e-cigarettes/cigarettes varies across groups defined by ever use of e-cigarettes/cigarettes. Interventions targeted at tackling impulsivity or adolescents whose friends and family members smoke may represent fruitful avenues for future research