Behaviour of smokers and their influencers in the UK during COVID-19 pandemic
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Purpose
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented circumstances and changes in behaviour. This research sought to better understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and lockdown, on smoking behaviour in the UK from the perspectives of consumers (current and former smokers) and some of their smoking-related behaviour-influencers.
Design/methodology/approach
This research project encompassed two surveys, one for current and former smokers (Consumers) and one for those individuals in professions with the potential to influence smoking behaviours (Influencers). Both surveys were conducted online and were infield for approximately two weeks during UK’s first COVID-19 lockdown. Because of the unprecedented times the society was experiencing, several questions relating directly to COVID-19 were added to the survey and this paper is based only on findings only from those questions and not the whole project. The results were analysed descriptively.
Findings
A total of 954 consumers and 1027 influencers participated in the surveys. Increased smoking was reported by 67% of the consumers mainly due to stress and boredom arising out of COVID-19 lockdown. Consumers under 45 years of age, those in professional and managerial occupations, and among dual users reported increased smoking in lockdown. The COVID-19 situation changed the plans to quit smoking in 36% of consumers, with only 6% deciding to quit. Only 40% of healthcare professionals (HCPs) documented patient smoking status in over half their interactions.
Originality/ value
This research among current and former smokers and their influencers highlights important changes in behaviour during the COVID-19 times and underscores urgent measures to be taken by HCPs and policymakers for staying on course of achieving smokefree goals despite challenges posed by COVID-19.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.25.21257716: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis Data analysis: As this study was largely descriptive, no power analysis was conducted. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:(12, 13) Strengths and limitations: This survey benefits from gaining perspectives from both HCPs and SSAs as well as a diverse range of smokers, vapers and dual users, giving a more …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.25.21257716: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis Data analysis: As this study was largely descriptive, no power analysis was conducted. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:(12, 13) Strengths and limitations: This survey benefits from gaining perspectives from both HCPs and SSAs as well as a diverse range of smokers, vapers and dual users, giving a more comprehensive view of the topic than any one group alone. A limitation of the study is the sample size and the sampling technique. The sample size in this study was not representative of the population. The analyses were descriptive and the study was not powered for statistical analysis. Another limitation of the study is the fact that behaviours were self-reported, and respondents were asked to explain certain behaviours. Therefore, their responses may not reflect subconscious factors which may drive certain behaviours. Respondents may also show some social desirability bias and demand characteristics, although the fact that the surveys were taken individually online may have helped to mitigate these issues. The surveys were also unable to take into consideration the emotional state of participants as they were responding, such as the time of day and whether influencers were pre or post-shift, as well as the impact of the COVID-19 crisis itself. Depending on their responses, some respondents will have completed surveys that are longer than is typically recommended, and therefore may have begun to experience fatigue, however, influencers in particular, were well remunerated due to being a specialist sample. The order of the questions in each survey attempted to follow a logical flow in order to m...
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
