Evidence Hub

Perceived Harm of Vaping Relative to Smoking and Associations With Subsequent Smoking and Vaping Behaviors Among Young Adults: Evidence From a UK Cohort Study

Katherine A. East, E. Taylor, Ann McNeill, Ioannis Bakolis, Amy E Taylor, Olivia M. Maynard, Marcus R. Munafò, J. Khouja

Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2025

687 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Abstract Introduction There is a lack of evidence on whether vaping harm perceptions can predict vaping and smoking behaviors among young adults in the United Kingdom. We aimed to assess whether the perceived harm of vaping relative to smoking is associated with subsequent changes in vaping and smoking behaviors in this population. Methods Data were from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), a prospective cohort study. Longitudinal associations were assessed between the perceived harm of vaping relative to smoking at baseline (approximately 24 years old; Nov’15–Aug’17) and the following smoking/vaping outcomes at follow-up (approximately 30 years old; May–Oct’22): (1) stopping smoking, (2) initiation of ever smoking and/or vaping, and (3) uptake of past 30-day smoking and/or vaping. Multinomial logistic regressions were used, adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Results Among young adults who smoked but did not vape at baseline (n = 687), the perception that vaping is less harmful than smoking (vs. equally/more harmful, or don’t know) was associated with stopping smoking and now vaping at follow-up (adjusted Relative Risk Ratio (aRRR)=1.69, 95%CI = 1.02 to 2.81, p = .04). Initiation of ever smoking/vaping, or uptake of past 30-day smoking/vaping, were not common during the study period and there was little evidence that these outcomes were associated with relative vaping harm perceptions at baseline. Conclusions Among young adults who smoke,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 687 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free