Discussion
Awareness of cessation aids among current combustible smokers varied by type of cessation aid: smoking cessation programmes, 50.8%; prescription cessation medication, 68.2% and NRT, 92.1%. Awareness of cessation aids was lowest among Black Africans, men and persons with little or no income. Of all current combustible smokers, 74.6% had ever attempted to quit and 42.8% of these quit attempters had ever used any cessation aid. Among past quit attempters, ever e-cigarette users were more likely than never e-cigarette users to have ever used any cessation aid (50.6% vs 35.9%, p<0.05). Of current combustible smokers intending to quit, 66.7% indicated interest in using a cessation aid for future quitting and only 33.3% wanted to quit cold turkey.
Despite high awareness of cessation aids among South African smokers, utilisation was low. Awareness and use were much lower for cessation counselling programmes and for prescription medications compared with NRT, possibly because of the ubiquitous display of NRT at retail outlets. Most NRT formulations, including oral spray and inhaler, can be purchased in South Africa as over-the-counter medication within pharmacies, supermarkets or online. However, as our findings revealed, low-income smokers may face severe limitations in accessing these medications. A complete regimen of nicotine patch lasting up to 12 weeks long, one patch per day, for a heavy smoker (10+ cigarettes), could cost between R9070 ($605) and R21 580 ($1438), based on current retail prices in South Africa and recommended usage.15 Including drugs for nicotine-dependence treatment on the South African Essential Drugs list,13 14 and expanding coverage for smoking cessation treatment within the National Health Insurance19 may increase access and utilisation of evidence-based cessation aids among South African smokers.
Current utilisation rates for cessation aids in our study were very similar to those reported in the USA, including for cessation counselling (7.1% vs 6.8%), any medication use (28.0% vs 29.0%) and use of any cessation aid (31.0% vs 31.2%, South Africa vs the USA, respectively).20 The pattern of disparities in access and use of cessation aids by socioeconomic status is also consistent with those reported elsewhere.6 21 In our study, Black Africans reported greater interest in using cessation aids and higher intentions to quit, but reported lower past use of cessation aids, suggesting that the gap in utilisation of cessation aids is largely driven by differences in socioeconomic status, rather than differences in interest or motivation. Increasing delivery of brief cessation counselling within all clinical settings (including public health facilities that serve low-income groups), as called for in Article 14 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,22 can help smokers quit and improve their health.23 24 In addition, enhancing the effectiveness of clinical smoking cessation services (eg, the 5As) can help increase cessation. For example, our findings suggest that asking smokers the reason why they smoke could be potentially useful in assessing their willingness to quit. Certain life-changing moments, such as the diagnosis of a serious condition associated with, or exacerbated by smoking (eg, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) can be leveraged to provide counselling and motivate quitting.25 Our results showed that a health scare was associated with quitting, especially among those with poor health conditions. Notably, older adults were less likely to make a quit attempt just for maintaining a healthy lifestyle but were more likely to do so on account of a health scare.
South Africa has not officially adopted tobacco harm reduction, however, some in the public health community have argued for the effectiveness of this strategy among ‘inveterate’ smokers who are unwilling or unable to quit.26 The potential viability of a harm reduction approach, from a public health context, however rests on assumptions that: (1) there is a large pool of inveterate smokers; (2) that these smokers will be interested in switching to, and exclusively using ‘reduced-risk’ products which would help them quit; and (3) that a regulated climate exists to prevent unwanted consequences among youth. Our findings however disprove several of these assumptions within the South African context. Only about 6% of current combustible smokers were considered ‘inveterate’, and even these were open to quitting for health reasons (50%), family considerations (29%), increasing age (24%) and increasing costs of cigarettes (15.6%).
As the tobacco market and regulatory landscapes in South Africa continue to evolve rapidly, regulation of novel products is critical to minimise potential population-level harms, including relapse and perpetuation of smoking behaviour among smokers. Deeming and regulating e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the proposed legislation may benefit public health,11 27 not only in South Africa, but regionally as well, given the leadership role South Africa plays in the region. These findings can help inform comprehensive tobacco prevention and control efforts, including restricting unsubstantiated marketing claims of e-cigarettes as effective smoking cessation aids within South Africa.
Socioeconomic status was not a significant predictor of quitting on account of ‘increasing cigarette cost’, possibly because of the use of price-minimising strategies by smokers, including buying cheap brands, single sticks or switching to cheaper RYO cigarettes.28 29 Policies that address cross-product price inequalities can help reduce demand and use of tobacco products.30 We also found that older adults, who had the lowest smoking prevalence, were the only demographic group to attempt to quit smoking in response to public bans on smoking, suggesting limited compliance. Stronger enforcement of policies that prohibit smoking in public places may prevent relapse by reducing social cues and denormalising smoking.31 32
More robust epidemiological studies that address threats to internal validity are needed to test some of the hypothesis generated from our study. For example, our results suggested that claims of e-cigarettes being effective cessation aids may be probably overstated in the South African context, given the observation that smokers who used e-cigarettes were more likely than non-e-cigarette users to have used other cessation aids. Clinical or real-world effectiveness trials are needed to evaluate the independent effect of e-cigarettes on smoking cessation in South Africa.
This study is not without limitations. First, it is impossible to determine temporality with the cross-sectional design (eg, order of using e-cigarettes and evidence-based cessation aids). Second, triggers of past quit attempt could have varied for individuals with multiple quit attempts as could also the types of cessation aids used. Third, the self-reported measures are subject to misreporting. Finally, despite the use of calibration weights, the weighted sample may still not be entirely representative of the South African adult population because adjustments were only made for a few variables for which information was available in the dataset. We however found that comparison of results with 2017 SASAS, a household-based survey, yielded similar results on assessed indicators.