Kathleen Case1, Brittani Crook1, Allison Lazard2, Michael Mackert3,4,5. 1. a University of Texas School of Public Health Austin Regional Campus , Austin , Texas , USA. 2. b School of Media and Journalism, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill , Chapel Hill , North Carolina , USA. 3. c Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Texas at Austin , Austin , Texas , USA. 4. d University of Texas at Austin Center for Health Communication, University of Texas at Austin , Austin , Texas , USA. 5. e School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center , Austin , Texas , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This formative study examined perceptions of e-cigarettes in college students with the goal of informing future health communication campaigns. Differences between e-cigarette users and nonusers were also examined. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty undergraduate students were recruited from a large southwestern public university (15 users, 15 nonusers). METHODS: Structured interviews were conducted and transcripts were coded for themes. RESULTS: Although users had more favorable attitudes toward e-cigarettes, both users and nonusers believed that e-cigarettes produce water vapor and reported that e-cigarettes were less harmful than conventional cigarettes. Potential health consequences and addiction concerns were the most common perceived threats for both users and nonusers. Both nonusers and users cited social stigma as a perceived disadvantage of e-cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, themes with particular relevance to future health communication campaigns included negative perceptions of e-cigarette users and social stigma, as well as harm perceptions and potential health consequences associated with e-cigarette use.
OBJECTIVE: This formative study examined perceptions of e-cigarettes in college students with the goal of informing future health communication campaigns. Differences between e-cigarette users and nonusers were also examined. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty undergraduate students were recruited from a large southwestern public university (15 users, 15 nonusers). METHODS: Structured interviews were conducted and transcripts were coded for themes. RESULTS: Although users had more favorable attitudes toward e-cigarettes, both users and nonusers believed that e-cigarettes produce water vapor and reported that e-cigarettes were less harmful than conventional cigarettes. Potential health consequences and addiction concerns were the most common perceived threats for both users and nonusers. Both nonusers and users cited social stigma as a perceived disadvantage of e-cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Ultimately, themes with particular relevance to future health communication campaigns included negative perceptions of e-cigarette users and social stigma, as well as harm perceptions and potential health consequences associated with e-cigarette use.
Entities:
Keywords:
E-cigarettes; Health Belief Model; Theory of Planned Behavior, young adults; nicotine
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Thomas P McCoy; Holly E R Morrell; Bettina B Hoeppner; Mark Wolfson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kathleen R Case; Alexandra Loukas; Melissa B Harrell; Anna V Wilkinson; Andrew E Springer; Adriana Pérez; MeLisa R Creamer; Cheryl L Perry Journal: J Am Coll Health Date: 2017-01-17
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; MeLisa R Creamer; Benjamin W Chaffee; Jennifer B Unger; Erin L Sutfin; Grace Kong; Ce Shang; Stephanie L Clendennen; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Rick Kosterman; Marina Epstein; Jennifer A Bailey; Sabrina Oesterle; Madeline Furlong; J David Hawkins Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: LáShauntá M Glover; Jennie Z Ma; Anshula Kesh; Lindsay K Tompkins; Joy L Hart; Delvon T Mattingly; Kandi Walker; Rose Marie Robertson; Tom Payne; Mario Sims Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: E E A Simpson; J Davison; J Doherty; L Dunwoody; C McDowell; M McLaughlin; S Butter; M Giles Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.295