Jennifer P Alexander1, Blair N Coleman2, Sarah E Johnson2, Greta K Tessman3, Cindy Tworek2, Denise M Dickinson4. 1. Research Scientist, Center for Communication Science, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. 2. Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration. 3. Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 4. Primary Prevention Research and Evaluation Program, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We explored the terminology of adult e-cigarette users in describing e-cigarette products and their use. We report how users discuss and differentiate these products and the language and culture surrounding them. METHODS: Focus groups (N = 12) were held in 5 locations in the United States between March and May, 2014. Participants (N = 99) included young adults or adults who were either exclusive or nonexclusive e-cigarette users. We gathered data on how users identify various types of e-cigarettes and how users understand and describe specific terms. RESULTS: Participants were familiar with the attributes of e-cigarettes in general but confused by the variety of products and unable to describe differences between product types. They were familiar with the term "vaping" even when they used "smoking" more frequently, and were clear that e-cigarettes do not produce traditional cigarette smoke. They had varied opinions about what to call regular users of e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight that conceptual clarity, including using specific and familiar terminology and product descriptions for users and nonusers alike, is challenging and crucial. It is important that surveillance efforts, policy development, messaging, and future research reflect the language understood and used by consumers to enable widespread comprehension.
OBJECTIVE: We explored the terminology of adult e-cigarette users in describing e-cigarette products and their use. We report how users discuss and differentiate these products and the language and culture surrounding them. METHODS: Focus groups (N = 12) were held in 5 locations in the United States between March and May, 2014. Participants (N = 99) included young adults or adults who were either exclusive or nonexclusive e-cigarette users. We gathered data on how users identify various types of e-cigarettes and how users understand and describe specific terms. RESULTS:Participants were familiar with the attributes of e-cigarettes in general but confused by the variety of products and unable to describe differences between product types. They were familiar with the term "vaping" even when they used "smoking" more frequently, and were clear that e-cigarettes do not produce traditional cigarette smoke. They had varied opinions about what to call regular users of e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight that conceptual clarity, including using specific and familiar terminology and product descriptions for users and nonusers alike, is challenging and crucial. It is important that surveillance efforts, policy development, messaging, and future research reflect the language understood and used by consumers to enable widespread comprehension.
Authors: Cristine D Delnevo; Daniel P Giovenco; Michael B Steinberg; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer L Pearson; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jonathan Foulds; Susan Veldheer; Jessica Yingst; Shari Hrabovsky; Stephen J Wilson; Travis T Nichols; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-10-19 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: William V Lechner; Ellen Meier; Josh L Wiener; DeMond M Grant; Jenna Gilmore; Matt R Judah; Adam C Mills; Theodore L Wagener Journal: Addiction Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 6.526
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: Shu-Hong Zhu; Jessica Y Sun; Erika Bonnevie; Sharon E Cummins; Anthony Gamst; Lu Yin; Madeleine Lee Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Scott R Weaver; Hyoshin Kim; Allison M Glasser; Erin L Sutfin; Jessica Barrington-Trimis; Thomas J Payne; Megan Saddleson; Alexandra Loukas Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Meghan E Morean; Krysten W Bold; Grace Kong; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Deepa R Camenga; Patricia Simon; Asti Jackson; Dana A Cavallo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-24 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kelly C Young-Wolff; Daniella Klebaner; Bruce Folck; Lisa Carter-Harris; Ramzi G Salloum; Judith J Prochaska; Renee Fogelberg; Andy S L Tan Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Jennifer H LeLaurin; Ryan P Theis; Lindsay A Thompson; Andy S L Tan; Kelly C Young-Wolff; Lisa Carter-Harris; Elizabeth A Shenkman; Ramzi G Salloum Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Laura A Gibson; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher; Melissa B Harrell; Grace Kong; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Adam M Leventhal; Alexandra Loukas; Rob McConnell; Scott R Weaver Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Ashley E Douglas; Margaret G Childers; Katelyn F Romm; Nicholas J Felicione; Jenny E Ozga; Melissa D Blank Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Dina M Jones; Mignonne C Guy; Eric Soule; Kari-Lyn K Sakuma; Pallav Pokhrel; Mohammed Orloff; Dennis Trinidad; Denelle Smith; Sharaka Browley; A Paige Walker; Sandilyn Bullock; Thomas Eissenberg; Pebbles Fagan Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 5.825
Authors: Jessica A Kulak; Michelle T Bover Manderski; Cristine D Delnevo; Mary Hrywna; Gregory G Homish; Gary A Giovino Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: David T Levy; Zhe Yuan; Yameng Li; Darren Mays; Luz Maria Sanchez-Romero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 3.390