INTRODUCTION Although recent research shows that smokers respond differently to the COVID-19 pandemic, it offers little explanation of why some have increased their smoking, while others decreased it. In this study, we examined a possible explanation for these different responses: pandemic-related stress. METHODS We conducted an online survey among a representative sample of Dutch current smokers from 11-18 May 2020 (n=957). During that period, COVID-19 was six weeks past the (initial) peak of cases and deaths in the Netherlands. Included in the survey were measures of how the COVID-19 pandemic had changed their smoking, if at all (no change, increased smoking, decreased smoking), and a measure of stress due to COVID-19. RESULTS Overall, while 14.1% of smokers reported smoking less due to the COVID-19 pandemic, 18.9% of smokers reported smoking more. A multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that there was a dose-response effect of stress: smokers who were somewhat stressed were more likely to have either increased (OR=2.37; 95% CI: 1.49-3.78) or reduced (OR=1.80; 95% CI: 1.07-3.05) their smoking. Severely stressed smokers were even more likely to have either increased (OR=3.75; 95% CI: 1.84-7.64) or reduced (OR=3.97; 95% CI: 1.70-9.28) their smoking. Thus, stress was associated with both increased and reduced smoking, independently from perceived difficulty of quitting and level of motivation to quit. CONCLUSIONS Stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic appears to affect smokers in different ways, some smokers increase their smoking while others decrease it. While boredom and restrictions in movement might have stimulated smoking, the threat of contracting COVID-19 and becoming severely ill might have motivated others to improve their health by quitting smoking. These data highlight the importance of providing greater resources for cessation services and the importance of creating public campaigns to enhance cessation in this dramatic time.

BackgroundHardcore smokers are smokers who have smoked for many years and who do not intend to quit smoking. The “hardening hypothesis” states that light smokers are more likely to quit smoking than heavy smokers (such as hardcore smokers). Therefore, the prevalence of hardcore smoking among smokers would increase over time. If this is true, the smoking population would become harder to reach with tobacco control measures. In this study we tested the hardening hypothesis.MethodsWe calculated the prevalence of hardcore smoking in the Netherlands from 2001 to 2012. Smokers were ‘hardcore’ if they a) smoked every day, b) smoked on average 15 cigarettes per day or more, c) had not attempted to quit in the past 12 months, and d) had no intention to quit within 6 months. We used logistic regression models to test whether the prevalence changed over time. We also investigated whether trends differed between educational levels.ResultsAmong smokers, the prevalence of hardcore smoking decreased from 40.8 % in 2001 to 32.2 % in 2012. In the general population, it decreased from 12.2 to 8.2 %. Hardcore smokers were significantly lower educated than non-hardcore smokers. Among the general population, the prevalence of hardcore smoking decreased more among higher educated people than among lower educated people.ConclusionsWe found no support for the hardening hypothesis in the Netherlands between 2001 and 2012. Instead, the decrease of hardcore smoking among smokers suggests a ‘softening’ of the smoking population.

The intervention increased hardcore smokers' receptivity to information about smoking cessation and decreased their cigarette consumption by about 1 cigarette per day. Although the results are positive, the clinical relevance may be limited. We recommend further developing this intervention for practical use in health care settings. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Hardcore smokers have smoked for many years and do not intend to quit. There are currently no online interventions for hardcore smokers. What does this study add? This study tested an online intervention for hardcore smokers. The intervention increased hardcore smokers' receptivity to information about quitting. It also helped to reduce the number of cigarettes per day.

IntroductionHardcore smokers are smokers who have little to no intention to quit. Previous research suggests that there are distinct subgroups among hardcore smokers and that these subgroups vary in the perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting. Identifying these subgroups could help to develop individualized messages for the group of hardcore smokers. In this study we therefore used the perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting to identify profiles among hardcore smokers.MethodsA sample of 510 hardcore smokers completed an online survey on the perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting. We used these perceived pros and cons in a latent profile analysis to identify possible subgroups among hardcore smokers. To validate the profiles identified among hardcore smokers, we analysed data from a sample of 338 non-hardcore smokers in a similar way.ResultsWe found three profiles among hardcore smokers. ‘Receptive’ hardcore smokers (36%) perceived many cons of smoking and many pros of quitting. ‘Ambivalent’ hardcore smokers (59%) were rather undecided towards quitting. ‘Resistant’ hardcore smokers (5%) saw few cons of smoking and few pros of quitting. Among non-hardcore smokers, we found similar groups of ‘receptive’ smokers (30%) and ‘ambivalent’ smokers (54%). However, a third group consisted of ‘disengaged’ smokers (16%), who saw few pros and cons of both smoking and quitting.DiscussionAmong hardcore smokers, we found three distinct profiles based on perceived pros and cons of smoking. This indicates that hardcore smokers are not a homogenous group. Each profile might require a different tobacco control approach. Our findings may help to develop individualized tobacco control messages for the particularly hard-to-reach group of hardcore smokers.