Electronic cigarette survey characteristics.

Jonathan Kopel, Jeff A Dennis, Kenneth Nugent
Author Information
  1. Jonathan Kopel: Department of Cell Biology and Biochemistry, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA. ORCID
  2. Jeff A Dennis: Department of Public Health, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA. ORCID
  3. Kenneth Nugent: Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Electronic cigarettes (EC) remain a controversial topic with uncertainty about harm reduction in current smokers, their efficacy in smoking cessation, their potential for addiction, the need for regulation, and the type of information needed to educate the public about the benefits and hazards of EC. Multiple medical institutions and organizations have conducted surveys to investigate the demographics and perceptions of EC consumers in adult and youth populations. However, it is unknown whether these surveys use consistent, reliable, or accurate measures for EC use.
METHODS: We analyzed 13 survey articles identified during a review of the use of EC during smoking cessation programs to determine the characteristic features of the surveys and to determine how frequently they satisfied the measurement of important core items suggested by recent articles.
RESULTS: Our analysis focused on 13 studies. These studies represented the work of 13 separate research groups and were published in 10 different biomedical journals with a median impact factor score of 4.1. The median number of participants in the studies was 2,624 (Q1-Q3: 662-6,356); the number of participants ranged from 179 to 19,414. The median number of e-cigarette users in the surveys was 840 (Q1-Q3: 256-3,849). All studies provided clear study goals in their introduction. Five surveys used on-line methods to collect information; four studies provided limited information about the reliability of their data. All studies reported study outcomes and considered limitations. Five studies had limited external validity. None of the surveys collected a complete set of core information recommended by recent authorities on survey methodology for EC.
CONCLUSIONS: The surveys reviewed in this project had significant variability in study design, survey population, and study goals. Consequently, comparisons across studies become difficult and limit the external validity of survey studies on EC.

Keywords

References

  1. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014 Jun;16(6):672-81 [PMID: 24376276]
  2. Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2017 Nov;9(6):1003-1009 [PMID: 29233367]
  3. N Z Med J. 2013 May 31;126(1375):48-57 [PMID: 23824024]
  4. Addiction. 2013 Sep;108(9):1671-9 [PMID: 23701634]
  5. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Aug;47(2):141-9 [PMID: 24794422]
  6. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Feb;17(2):180-5 [PMID: 24827788]
  7. J Addict Med. 2015 Jul-Aug;9(4):266-72 [PMID: 25974378]
  8. Risk Anal. 2017 Jun;37(6):1170-1180 [PMID: 27595498]
  9. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Feb;17(2):245-55 [PMID: 24951496]
  10. Tob Induc Dis. 2014 Aug 21;12(1):13 [PMID: 25170337]
  11. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015 Feb;17(2):212-8 [PMID: 25378683]
  12. Addiction. 2014 Sep;109(9):1531-40 [PMID: 24846453]
  13. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 1;39:215-235 [PMID: 29323609]
  14. Am J Med Sci. 2016 Oct;352(4):420-426 [PMID: 27776725]
  15. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2013 Mar;32(2):133-40 [PMID: 22994631]
  16. Am J Med. 2006 Feb;119(2):166.e7-16 [PMID: 16443422]
  17. Tob Control. 2018 May;27(3):341-346 [PMID: 28624764]
  18. N Engl J Med. 2017 Sep 21;377(12):1111-1114 [PMID: 28813211]
  19. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014 Apr 22;11(4):4356-73 [PMID: 24758891]
  20. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2018;16(4):438-459 [PMID: 29046158]
  21. J Bras Pneumol. 2018 May-Jun;44(3):183 [PMID: 30043882]
  22. Am J Med. 2015 Jul;128(7):674-81 [PMID: 25731134]
  23. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015 Feb 1;147:68-75 [PMID: 25561385]
  24. Nicotine Tob Res. 2017 Feb;19(2):208-214 [PMID: 27613919]
  25. PLoS One. 2016 Aug 12;11(8):e0161124 [PMID: 27517716]
  26. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 Apr;156(4):397-403 [PMID: 11929376]
  27. Addict Behav. 2018 Apr;79:219-225 [PMID: 29175027]
  28. Addict Behav. 2017 Apr;67:86-91 [PMID: 28063324]
  29. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Jul;26(11):1219-1228 [PMID: 30823865]
  30. Addict Behav. 2018 Apr;79:203-212 [PMID: 29173942]
  31. Addict Behav. 2018 Apr;79:213-218 [PMID: 29174664]
  32. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):960-962 [PMID: 31491071]
  33. Prev Med. 2014 Dec;69:90-4 [PMID: 25230365]
  34. BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 23;7(2):e012680 [PMID: 28235965]
  35. N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 5;382(10):903-916 [PMID: 31491072]
  36. PLoS One. 2014 Dec 03;9(12):e114256 [PMID: 25469996]
  37. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 Jan 1;21(1):63-70 [PMID: 29546379]
  38. Addict Behav. 2014 Feb;39(2):491-4 [PMID: 24229843]
  39. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 May;97(19):e0324 [PMID: 29742683]
  40. Am J Public Health. 2015 Jun;105(6):1213-9 [PMID: 25880947]
  41. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002 Nov;68 Suppl 1:S41-56 [PMID: 12324174]
  42. Am J Public Health. 2013 Mar;103(3):556-61 [PMID: 23327246]
  43. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020 Apr 21;22(5):756-763 [PMID: 30874804]
  44. J Grad Med Educ. 2011 Jun;3(2):119-20 [PMID: 22655129]
  45. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2018 May;12(5):345-347 [PMID: 29540079]
  46. Int J Drug Policy. 2015 Jun;26(6):601-8 [PMID: 25582280]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studiessurveysECsurveyinformationstudyuse13mediannumberElectronicsmokingcessationarticlesdeterminecorerecentparticipantsQ1-Q3:providedgoalsFivelimitedexternalvaliditymethodologyINTRODUCTION:cigarettesremaincontroversialtopicuncertaintyharmreductioncurrentsmokersefficacypotentialaddictionneedregulationtypeneedededucatepublicbenefitshazardsMultiplemedicalinstitutionsorganizationsconductedinvestigatedemographicsperceptionsconsumersadultyouthpopulationsHoweverunknownwhetherconsistentreliableaccuratemeasuresMETHODS:analyzedidentifiedreviewprogramscharacteristicfeaturesfrequentlysatisfiedmeasurementimportantitemssuggestedRESULTS:analysisfocusedrepresentedworkseparateresearchgroupspublished10differentbiomedicaljournalsimpactfactorscore412624662-6356ranged17919414e-cigaretteusers840256-3849clearintroductionusedon-linemethodscollectfourreliabilitydatareportedoutcomesconsideredlimitationsNonecollectedcompletesetrecommendedauthoritiesCONCLUSIONS:reviewedprojectsignificantvariabilitydesignpopulationConsequentlycomparisonsacrossbecomedifficultlimitcigarettecharacteristicsE-cigarettes

Similar Articles

Cited By