METHODS: Data among former and current adult smokers aged 18 and older came from contemporaneous Global Adult Tobacco Surveys (2008-2011) and the International Tobacco Control Surveys (2009-2013) conducted in eight LMICs (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand and Uruguay). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of successful quitting in the past year by SES indicators (household income/wealth, education, employment status, and rural-urban residence) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression controlling for socio-demographics and average tobacco product prices. A random effects meta-analysis was used to combine the estimates of AORs pooled across countries and two concurrent surveys for each country.
RESULTS: Estimated quit rates among smokers (both daily and occasional) varied widely across countries. Meta-analysis of pooled AORs across countries and data sources indicated that there was no clear evidence of an association between SES indicators and successful quitting. The only exception was employed smokers, who were less likely to quit than their non-employed counterparts, which included students, homemakers, retirees, and the unemployed (pooled AOR≈0.8, p<0.10).
CONCLUSION: Lack of clear evidence of the impact of lower SES on adult cessation behaviour in LMICs suggests that lower-SES smokers are not less successful in their attempts to quit than their higher-SES counterparts. Specifically, lack of employment, which is indicative of younger age and lower nicotine dependence for students, or lower personal disposable income and lower affordability for the unemployed and the retirees, may be associated with quitting. Raising taxes and prices of tobacco products that lowers affordability of tobacco products might be a key strategy for inducing cessation behaviour among current smokers and reducing overall tobacco consumption. Because low-SES smokers are more sensitive to price increases, tobacco taxation policy can induce disproportionately larger decreases in tobacco consumption among them and help reduce socio-economic disparities in smoking and consequent health outcomes.
DESIGN: Use of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project surveys of smokers, using the 2007 survey wave (or later, where necessary).
SETTINGS: Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom, Uruguay and United States.
PARTICIPANTS: Samples of smokers from 15 countries.
MEASUREMENTS: Self-report on use of cessation aids and on visits to health professionals and provision of cessation advice during the visits.
FINDINGS: Prevalence of quit attempts in the last year varied from less than 20% to more than 50% across countries. Similarly, smokers varied greatly in reporting visiting health professionals in the last year (<20% to over 70%), and among those who did, provision of advice to quit also varied greatly. There was also marked variability in the levels and types of help reported. Use of medication was generally more common than use of behavioural support, except where medications are not readily available.
CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation across countries in rates of attempts to stop smoking and use of assistance with higher overall use of medication than behavioural support. There is also wide variation in the provision of brief advice to stop by health professionals.
METHODS: Data came from the 2020 ITC Malaysia Survey, a web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of adults who smoked (n=1047) aged 18 and older. They were asked on ever heard of, ever used, and currently using HTPs, and their reasons for using HTPs.
RESULTS: Overall, 25.4% (n= 324; 95% CI:22.3%-28.7%) of Malaysians who smoked reported ever used HTPs with 6.7% (n=85; 95% CI:22.3%-28.7%) were using them daily and 8.1% (n=110; 95% CI:6.4% -10.2%) were using HTPs non-daily. Most of them (57.2%) who dual use were of aged 25-39 and 97.3% were males. Among those who smoked daily, almost half (49.3%) were also using HTP daily. Among those who used HTPs daily and non-daily, curiosity (84.2%, 95% CI:78.4%-90.0%), taste (83.2%, 95% CI:77.3%-89.1%), and appealing technology (78.5%, 95% CI:71.3%-85.6%) were the most reported reasons. Among those who used HTPs daily, curiosity was the top reason (87.9%, 95% CI:78.9%-93.4%), while among non-daily, taste good was the top reason (81.9%, 95% CI:71.9%-88.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: The very high use of HTPs among Malaysians who smoked requires continued public health surveillance that can inform the regulation of these novel tobacco products.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: A cross-sectional analysis of adult (≥ 18 years) current smokers and ex-smokers from 14 countries participating in the ITC Project. Data from the most recent survey questionnaire for each country were included, which spanned the period 2013-17. Countries were categorized into four groups based on regulations governing NVP sales and marketing (allowable or not), and level of enforcement (strict or weak where NVPs are not permitted to be sold): (1) most restrictive policies (MRPs), not legal to be sold or marketed with strict enforcement: Australia, Brazil, Uruguay; (2) restrictive policies (RPs), not approved for sale or marketing with weak enforcement: Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand; (3) less restrictive policies (LRPs), legal to be sold and marketed with regulations: England, the Netherlands, Republic of Korea, United States; and (4) no regulatory policies (NRPs), Bangladesh, China, Zambia. Countries were also grouped by World Bank Income Classifications. Country-specific weighted logistic regression models estimated adjusted NVP prevalence estimates for: awareness, ever/current use, and frequency of use (daily versus non-daily).
FINDINGS: NVP awareness and use were lowest in NRP countries. Generally, ever- and current use of NVPs were lower in MRP countries (ever-use = 7.1-48.9%; current use = 0.3-3.5%) relative to LRP countries (ever-use = 38.9-66.6%; current use = 5.5-17.2%) and RP countries (ever-use = 10.0-62.4%; current use = 1.4-15.5%). NVP use was highest among high-income countries, followed by upper-middle-income countries, and then by lower-middle-income countries.
CONCLUSIONS: With a few exceptions, awareness and use of nicotine vaping products varied by the strength of national regulations governing nicotine vaping product sales/marketing, and by country income. In countries with no regulatory policies, use rates were very low, suggesting that there was little availability, marketing and/or interest in nicotine vaping products in these countries where smoking populations are predominantly poorer. The higher awareness and use of nicotine vaping products in high income countries with moderately (e.g. Canada, New Zealand) and less (e.g. England, United States) restrictive policies, is likely due to the greater availability and affordability of nicotine vaping products.