Skip to main content
. 2021 Sep 14;2021(9):CD010216. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub6

Hajek 2015a.

Study characteristics
Methods Design: Prospective cohort, intervention provided
Recruitment: People who smoke attending stop‐smoking service
Study start date: March 2014; Study end date: March 2015
Setting: Stop‐smoking service, London, UK
Participants Total N: 100 (69 of whom accepted offer of EC)
Inclusion criteria:
  • All people who smoked joining stop‐smoking service


38% women (those who accepted) 55% women (those who declined), mean age 41, mean cpd 14, all motivated to quit. EC use at baseline not specified but some who declined EC offer had used EC in the past
Motivated to quit: Yes
E‐cigarette use at baseline: Not specified
Interventions EC: Cig‐a‐like and refillable
EC: offered to all people who smoke joining service; offered choice of ‘cig‐a‐like’ (Gamucci, 1.6% or 2.2% nicotine per ml) product or tank model (EVOD, 1.8%; later replaced with Aspire product due to leakage issues). 69% of those offered received an EC on TQD
Medication: Offered stop‐smoking medications including NRT and varenicline as in standard protocol. Of EC users 33% opted to also use NRT, 29% varenicline, 38% nothing
Support: weekly, as in standard protocol
Outcomes Adverse events collected throughout, method for collection unclear
Also collected: 4‐week biochemically‐validated abstinence, participant feedback, cost
Study funding "The pilot study was sponsored by City of London Corporation."
Author declarations "Peter Hajek received research funds from and provided consultancy to manufacturers of smoking cessation medications. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare."
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk Not randomized
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Not randomized
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes Unclear risk 26% lost in EC group, dropout rate in EC decliners not reported. Reasons for dropout not stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Unclear which outcomes authors set out to collect, no protocol available