Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey


      Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) initially emerged in 2003 and have since become widely available globally, particularly over the Internet.


      Data on ENDS usage patterns are limited. The current paper examines patterns of ENDS awareness, use, and product-associated beliefs among current and former smokers in four countries.


      Data come from Wave 8 of the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey, collected July 2010 to June 2011 and analyzed through June 2012. Respondents included 5939 current and former smokers in Canada (n=1581); the U.S. (n=1520); the United Kingdom (UK; n=1325); and Australia (n=1513).


      Overall, 46.6% were aware of ENDS (U.S.: 73%, UK: 54%, Canada: 40%, Australia: 20%); 7.6% had tried ENDS (16% of those aware of ENDS); and 2.9% were current users (39% of triers). Awareness of ENDS was higher among younger, non-minority smokers with higher incomes who were heavier smokers. Prevalence of trying ENDS was higher among younger, nondaily smokers with a high income and among those who perceived ENDS as less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Current use was higher among both nondaily and heavy (≥20 cigarettes per day) smokers. In all, 79.8% reported using ENDS because they were considered less harmful than traditional cigarettes; 75.4% stated that they used ENDS to help them reduce their smoking; and 85.1% reported using ENDS to help them quit smoking.


      Awareness of ENDS is high, especially in countries where they are legal (i.e., the U.S. and UK). Because trial was associated with nondaily smoking and a desire to quit smoking, ENDS may have the potential to serve as a cessation aid.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Cahn Z.
        • Siegel M.
        Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control: a step forward or a repeat of past mistakes?.
        J Public Health Policy. 2011; 32: 16-31
        • Siegel M.B.
        • Tanwar K.L.
        • Wood K.S.
        Electronic cigarettes as a smoking-cessation tool: results from an online survey.
        Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40: 472-475
        • Borland R.
        Electronic cigarettes as a method of tobacco control.
        Br Med J. 2011; 343: 1238
        • Foulds J.
        • Berg A.
        • Veldheer S.
        Electronic cigarettes (e-cigs): views of aficionados and clinical/public health perspectives.
        Int J Clin Pract. 2011; 65: 1037-1042
        • Wagener T.L.
        • Siegel M.
        • Borrelli B.
        Electronic cigarettes: achieving a balanced perspective.
        Addiction. 2012; 107 (E-pub Apr 4, 2012)
        • Williams M.
        • Talbot P.
        Variability among electronic cigarettes in the pressure drop, airflow rate, and aerosol production.
        Nicotine Tob Res. 2011; 13: 1276-1283
        • Trtchounian A.
        • Talbot P.
        Electronic nicotine delivery systems: is there a need for regulation?.
        Tob Control. 2010; 20: 47-52
        • Cobb N.K.
        • Abrams D.B.
        E-cigarette or drug-delivery device? Regulating novel nicotine products.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 193-195
        • McCauley L.
        • Markin C.
        • Hosmer D.
        An unexpected consequence of electronic cigarette use.
        Chest. 2012; 141: 1110-1113
        • Henningfield J.E.
        • Zaatari G.S.
        Electronic nicotine delivery systems: emerging science foundation for policy.
        Tob Control. 2010; 19: 89-90
        • Etter J.-F.
        • Bullen C.
        • Flouris A.D.
        • Laugesen M.
        • Eissenberg T.
        Electronic nicotine delivery systems: a research agenda.
        Tob Control. 2011; 20: 243-248
        • Etter J.-F.
        • Bullen C.
        Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy.
        Addiction. 2011; 106: 2017-2028
        • Etter J.-F.
        Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users.
        BMC Public Health. 2010; 10: 231-237
        • Regan A.K.
        • Promoff G.
        • Dube S.R.
        • Arrazola R.
        Electronic nicotine delivery systems: adult use and awareness of the “e-cigarette” in the U.S.
        Tob Control. 2011; (E-pub 10/27/2011)
        • Pearson J.L.
        • Richardson A.
        • Niaura R.S.
        • Vallone D.M.
        • Abrams D.B.
        e-cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions in U.S. adults.
        Am J Public Health. 2012; 19: 19
      1. Dockrell M. What smokers tell us about e-cigarettes. UK National Smoking Cessation Conference; June; UK 2010.

        • Fong G.T.
        • Cummings K.M.
        • Borland R.
        • et al.
        The conceptual framework of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Policy Evaluation Project.
        Tob Control. 2006; 15: iii3-iii11
        • Thompson M.E.
        • Fong G.T.
        • Hammond D.
        • et al.
        Methods of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey.
        Tob Control. 2006; 15 (iii12–iii8)
        • Polosa R.
        • Caponnetto P.
        • Morjaria J.B.
        • Papale G.
        • Campagna D.
        • Russ C.
        Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e-Cigarette) on smoking reduction and cessation: a prospective 6-month pilot study.
        BMC Public Health. 2011; 11: 786-797
        • Ayers J.W.
        • Ribisl K.M.
        • Brownstein J.S.
        Tracking the rise in popularity of electronic nicotine delivery systems (electronic cigarettes) using search query surveillance.
        Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40: 448-453