Gallup Poll finds 48% of former smokers in US reported quitting “cold turkey”, 5% with skin patch, 3% with e-cigarettes, 2% with prescription drugs, 1

[Bill Godshall]

New Gallup Poll finds 48% of former smokers in US reported quitting “cold turkey”, 5% with nicotine patch, 3% with e-cigarettes, 2% with prescription drugs, 1% with nicotine gum; finds 85% of smokers have tried to quit, including 45% who tried at least three times.
Most U.S. Smokers Want to Quit, Have Tried Multiple Times
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/04/quit-smoking-cigarettes_n_3684381.html

So just 8% of all former smokers in the US reported quitting by using an FDA approved product, while 3% reported quitting by using e-cigs.

This is pretty amazing considering that FDA approved nicotine gums and patches have been aggressively marketed for more than 20 years, and other FDA approved drugs (wellbutrin and verenicline) have been aggressively marketed for about about a decade.

Meanwhile, e-cigarettes have only been on the US market since 2006 (and have been demonized by FDA, many public health officials and by many drug industry funded anti tobacco groups).

 

[r77r7r]

Gallup?? Lol. Just finished settling a huge lawsuit last month.

Alleged violations of the False Claims Act and the Procurement Integrity Act

Gallup (company) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gayhalo]

Ok. What did the other 38% give up using. The figures make no sense without the 38%. Maybe we need to know what the question was.... You can get the answer you want by asking the question the right way...... And Gallup are the experts.

 

[pamdis]

All Americans:
19% current smokers
24% former smokers
56% never smoked

Of the 24% who sucessfully quit
48% cold turkey
5% patch
2% presciption drugs
1% gum
3% e-cigs
Rest are scattered across other things like, prayer, cutting down slowly, hypnosis, etc.

 

[Frankenmizer]

Some interesting tidbits from TFA:

Out of 2,027 polled, 3% or 60 people used e-cigs. That's less than even the most optimistic sample error rate (+/- 4%) quoted by Gallup.

62% of those who quit used no traditional physical means, 10% used pharma, 12% Other..a.k.a. grab bag of unknown.

14% said "Too expensive". Tax impact right there.

Direct quote:

Implications

Smokers on average are engaging in a habit they wish they didn't have, and, in fact, the average smoker has attempted to quit at least three times in their lifetime. The difficulty in quitting is attested to by the fact that more than seven in 10 smokers say they are addicted to cigarettes.

The varied strategies for quitting cited by former smokers suggest there is not a dominant "magic bullet" method, but rather just a basic decision at some point in smokers' lives to quit cold turkey.

The majority of former smokers say their concern for their health was the main factor that caused them to quit smoking. This is an important finding, but given that 91% of smokers already admit that smoking is harmful to smokers' health and 79% admit that smoking is a cause of lung cancer, it is clear that the specter of bad health, disease, and death has not been enough in and of itself to get smokers to stop.


That last sentence says it all.


Now let's see if the e-Cig industry, such as it is, promotes vaping as a way to quit or a way to replace.

 

[pamdis]

Also, in thinking about this, the former smokers would include all former smokers. Those who quit last year as well as those who quit in 1980 or 1960. Here's an interesting article about at study showing a 40% success rate for e-cigs:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/new-study-reports-amazing-40-success.html

 

[Frankenmizer]

Also, in thinking about this, the former smokers would include all former smokers. Those who quit last year as well as those who quit in 1980 or 1960. Here's an interesting article about at study showing a 40% success rate for e-cigs:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/new-study-reports-amazing-40-success.html

That's the Polosa study. Unfortunately, it didn't include adequate control groups. But it's a start down the hard science path.

 

[Vocalek]

How many times do I have to tell you? The Polosa studies were NOT smoking cessation studies.

Smoking cessation studies recruit people who want to quit smoking. In Polosa's studies, anyone who said s/he was interested in quitting was excluded from the study. The purpose of the studies were to determine whether e-cigarettes could help those who don't want to (or can't) quit to at least reduce the number of cigarettes per day they smoke, thereby exposing them to fewer toxins and carcinogens. There was a pilot study that used 40 subjects, and it was the 24-month follow-up that Siegel was writing about. The full study recruited 300 people who did not want to quit, and divided them into three groups, testing three different dosages of nicotine.

Those studies would more properly be categorized as smoking reduction studies.

And what, pray tell, would be the adequate control group for such a study? One-third of the people in the full study were getting cartridges with zero nicotine. An "inactive" treatment is what usually serves as a control group in smoking cessation studies. For example, in studies of the patch, the active group got nicotine in their patches and the control group got patches with no drug.

 

[Frankenmizer]

How many times do I have to tell you? The Polosa studies were NOT smoking cessation studies.

Smoking cessation studies recruit people who want to quit smoking. In Polosa's studies, anyone who said s/he was interested in quitting was excluded from the study. The purpose of the studies were to determine whether e-cigarettes could help those who don't want to (or can't) quit to at least reduce the number of cigarettes per day they smoke, thereby exposing them to fewer toxins and carcinogens. There was a pilot study that used 40 subjects, and it was the 24-month follow-up that Siegel was writing about. The full study recruited 300 people who did not want to quit, and divided them into three groups, testing three different dosages of nicotine.

Those studies would more properly be categorized as smoking reduction studies.

And what, pray tell, would be the adequate control group for such a study? One-third of the people in the full study were getting cartridges with zero nicotine. An "inactive" treatment is what usually serves as a control group in smoking cessation studies. For example, in studies of the patch, the active group got nicotine in their patches and the control group got patches with no drug.

Me? You've never told me anything, ever.


But, from the Reuters article:

1. It did not, however, compare the devices to traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or patches.

The full range of nicotine-replacement therapies (NRT's) have to be compared against each other. The Polosa study did not do that.

2. Since there was no control group of smokers who got no e-cigarettes at all, it's hard to know how many would have quit smoking on their own by the end of a year, experts noted.

..or would have reduced smoking on their own without inducement, I might add.

A control group is essential to making the case for a bulletproof study. Polosa did not have a control. But it is a beginning, and that's good.


You're an advocate, you have a particular position and thereby a particular axe to grind.

And that's also, in this case, good, because I am a vaper - just not a blind one.


I am a scientist professionally. I often encounter the null hypothesis. I respect it. YMMV.

 

[Rickajho]

Polls like that make me... uncomfortable.

Q: "What were some of the major reasons or factors that caused you to quit smoking?"

A: "Spiritual help with quitting."

Anyone care to run that one through the comprehension meat grinder? God made me do it? Joined a cult to quit program? What!?

Must be my perceived pointlessness of the poll questions.

 

[MonkInsane]

Me? You've never told me anything, ever.


But, from the Reuters article:

1. It did not, however, compare the devices to traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or patches.

The full range of nicotine-replacement therapies (NRT's) have to be compared against each other. The Polosa study did not do that.

2. Since there was no control group of smokers who got no e-cigarettes at all, it's hard to know how many would have quit smoking on their own by the end of a year, experts noted.

..or would have reduced smoking on their own without inducement, I might add.

A control group is essential to making the case for a bulletproof study. Polosa did not have a control. But it is a beginning, and that's good.


You're an advocate, you have a particular position and thereby a particular axe to grind.

And that's also, in this case, good, because I am a vaper - just not a blind one.


I am a scientist professionally. I often encounter the null hypothesis. I respect it. YMMV.

You cant compare E-Cigs to NRT's because itr is not NRT. It is a healthier alternative to cigarettes!! The goal of NRT is cessation of nicotine, this is not the case in e-cigs. Yes, some do end up quitting entirely using E-cigs - but it was never designed with Nicotine cessation in mind. I certainly have no intention of quitting vaping.

 

[MonkInsane]

Me? You've never told me anything, ever.


But, from the Reuters article:

1. It did not, however, compare the devices to traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or patches.

The full range of nicotine-replacement therapies (NRT's) have to be compared against each other. The Polosa study did not do that.

2. Since there was no control group of smokers who got no e-cigarettes at all, it's hard to know how many would have quit smoking on their own by the end of a year, experts noted.

..or would have reduced smoking on their own without inducement, I might add.

A control group is essential to making the case for a bulletproof study. Polosa did not have a control. But it is a beginning, and that's good.


You're an advocate, you have a particular position and thereby a particular axe to grind.

And that's also, in this case, good, because I am a vaper - just not a blind one.


I am a scientist professionally. I often encounter the null hypothesis. I respect it. YMMV.

You cant compare E-Cigs to NRT's because itr is not NRT. It is a healthier alternative to cigarettes!! The goal of NRT is cessation of nicotine, this is not the case in e-cigs. Yes, some do end up quitting entirely using E-cigs - but it was never designed with Nicotine cessation in mind. I certainly have no intention of quitting vaping.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Forgot where I saw it..but "cold turkey" belongs on a sammich!

 

[CookingWithGuns]

Gallup?? Lol. Just finished settling a huge lawsuit last month.

Alleged violations of the False Claims Act and the Procurement Integrity Act

Gallup (company) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd just like to point out, the lawsuit was for political pressure, not wrongdoing. Their methodology was sound, certain people didn't like the results being public.

However, I have a hard time believing that many quit cold Turkey. EVERYONE I know who quit used something in place of it, even if it wasn't something on this list. Should have had an "other" option.

 

[r77r7r]

How many times do I have to tell you? The Polosa studies were NOT smoking cessation studies.

Smoking cessation studies recruit people who want to quit smoking. In Polosa's studies, anyone who said s/he was interested in quitting was excluded from the study. The purpose of the studies were to determine whether e-cigarettes could help those who don't want to (or can't) quit to at least reduce the number of cigarettes per day they smoke, thereby exposing them to fewer toxins and carcinogens. There was a pilot study that used 40 subjects, and it was the 24-month follow-up that Siegel was writing about. The full study recruited 300 people who did not want to quit, and divided them into three groups, testing three different dosages of nicotine.

Those studies would more properly be categorized as smoking reduction studies.

And what, pray tell, would be the adequate control group for such a study? One-third of the people in the full study were getting cartridges with zero nicotine. An "inactive" treatment is what usually serves as a control group in smoking cessation studies. For example, in studies of the patch, the active group got nicotine in their patches and the control group got patches with no drug.

Yes, Mother.....

 

[MonkInsane]

View attachment 239064

Yes, Mother.....

And the point of your comment was? To Insult? To Berate?

 

[Vocalek]

Me? You've never told me anything, ever.


But, from the Reuters article:

1. It did not, however, compare the devices to traditional nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum or patches.

The full range of nicotine-replacement therapies (NRT's) have to be compared against each other. The Polosa study did not do that.

2. Since there was no control group of smokers who got no e-cigarettes at all, it's hard to know how many would have quit smoking on their own by the end of a year, experts noted.

..or would have reduced smoking on their own without inducement, I might add.

A control group is essential to making the case for a bulletproof study. Polosa did not have a control. But it is a beginning, and that's good.


You're an advocate, you have a particular position and thereby a particular axe to grind.

And that's also, in this case, good, because I am a vaper - just not a blind one.


I am a scientist professionally. I often encounter the null hypothesis. I respect it. YMMV.

The "you" was a collective you, not aimed at you personally. It's just that over and over again I have seen complaints that this was not a very well designed "smoking cessation" study. All the documented smoking cessation studies were not really smoking cessation studies, but rather nicotine cessation studies. The goal was to wean smokers off nicotine. The researchers recruited smokers that wanted to quit, or at least who were open to the idea of quitting.

But in smoking cessation studies, there are usually two or more arms, and one of these arms gives them sham treatment. It looks like the treatment being given to the other arms, but it doesn't contain the active ingredient. This was true of the Polosa smoking reduction studies, as well.

If this had been an NRT study, the group that received zero nicotine in their e-cigarette would have been considered the control group. But since even that group experienced a reduction in CPD, as well as a 4% abstinence rate, Polosa concluded at the end of the study that all three arms were, in reality, treatment arms. Is this something he should have expected?

There's nothing in the literature about how well zero nicotine e-cigarettes work for reduction or cessation. We can extrapolate a little from the surveys that ask people whether they use nicotine, but there's not enough data to make valid comparisons. In the CASAA survey, only 3.1% reported they were using zero nicotine. In the Etter and Bullen survey published in Addiction, 97% reported using nicotine. Do two cases equate to a trend? If we consider only these two cases, we could surmise that 3% of e-cigarette users could be expected to use zero nicotine and perhaps reduce CPD or become abstinent. But then again, e-cigarette users are self-recruited for wanting to do something about their smoking. So they don't exactly make up a "not interested in quitting" group.

So I guess you are saying that to be valid, he needed to recruit 100 more people who did not want to quit, call them the "control group", and then give them no treatment at all. Such a design could not be blinded, unless all of the people recruited were kept in the dark about the nature of the treatment being studied.

Is that how you would suggest constructing future studies?

 

[kristin]

However, I have a hard time believing that many quit cold Turkey. EVERYONE I know who quit used something in place of it, even if it wasn't something on this list. Should have had an "other" option.

You'd be surprised. A lot of research does show that the most successful method of quitting is "cold turkey." If you think about it, even using NRT you have to quit that product eventually and then it still all comes down to will power (ie. cold turkey). Just using the gum or patch and quitting the habit aspect of smoking takes a lot of will power, because we know from studying vapers that smokers smoke for reasons other than just the nicotine.

That's one reason why I don't believe nicotine itself is all that addictive. When the ANTZ claim 85% of smokers "want" to quit, I believe those smokers really mean the know they SHOULD quit, so they say they "want" to quit. But those who really, honestly WANT to quit and are ready to quit manage to quit pretty easily. The hardest part to give up is the habit, not the nicotine. Just look at how hard it is for someone who bites their nails to quit and there is no "addictive chemical" involved and how easily so many vapers reduce or eliminate using nicotine because they still can have the habit without it.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I agree with Vocalek's post above.

Back to the Gallup Poll, it is critically important to note that a majority of the respondents who claimed to be "former smokers" quit smoking more than two or three decades ago.

The finding that 3% of all former smokers in the US quit smoking with e-cigarettes is huge, especially considering that smoking rates haven't declined much during the past decade, and that e-cigs have only been available in the US since 2006.

Just as important is Gallup's finding that only 1% of former smokers reported quitting with nicotine gum, only 2% quit with prescription drugs, and only 5% quit with nicotine patches. All of these FDA approved products (especially gum and patches) have been on the market far longer than e-cigs, have been heavily marketed on television as "the most effective way to quit smoking", have been aggressively advocated by drug industry funded anti tobacco groups, by all public health agencies and by many medical groups, and have been subsidized by federal, states and local governments and by healthcare insurance policy holders.

In sharp contrast, most of the same government agencies and drug industry funded groups (that have aggressively promoted FDA approved products for smoking cessation) have repeatedly made false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigarettes and campaigned to ban them.

 

[gayhalo]

Yes Bill. It is no test of e cigs as the playing field is tilted toward the " which method has been available the longest". There must have been an error factor and things like that.... Someone said it was 4%. If they are looking for % of less than the error factor they should up the number is the survey otherwise it's pretty meaningless.