BACKGROUND: Along with the growth in popularity of electronic cigarette devices (e-cigs), the variety of e-cig liquids (e-liquid) available to users has also grown. Although some studies have published data about the use of flavored e-liquid, there is no standardized way to group flavors, making it difficult to interpret the data and replicate results across studies. The current study describes a method to classify user-reported e-liquid flavors and presents the resulting proportion of users in each flavor group in a large online survey of e-cig users. METHODS: Three thousand seven hundred sixteen participants completed an online survey about their e-cig use and responded to the following open-ended question regarding their use of e-liquid, "What is your favorite flavor and what brand of flavored liquid do you prefer?" Researchers used a 3 step method to determine the flavor attributes present in the e-liquids reported using an online search engine. Once all flavor attributes were identified, researchers used the constant comparative method to group the flavor attributes and delineate how to classify flavors with mixed components (eg, cinnamon Red Hots as a candy not a spice). RESULTS: The resulting classification scheme and proportions of e-liquids in each category were as follows: Tobacco (23.7%), Menthol/mint (14.8%), Fruit (20.3%), Dessert/sweets (20.7%), Alcohol (2.8%), Nuts/spices (2.0%), Candy (2.1%), Coffee/tea (4.3%), Beverage (3.1%), Unflavored (0.4%), and Don't Know/Other (5.8%). CONCLUSION: To better understand the use of flavored e-liquids, standardized methods to classify the flavors could facilitate data interpretation and comparison across studies. This study proposes a method for classifying the characterizing flavors in e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. IMPLICATIONS: Current studies on the use of flavored e-liquid have used unclear methods to collect and report information on the use of flavors. This study adds a proposed method for classifying the flavors in the e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. With a clear and explicit method for classifying self-reported flavors, future study results may be more easily compared.
BACKGROUND: Along with the growth in popularity of electronic cigarette devices (e-cigs), the variety of e-cig liquids (e-liquid) available to users has also grown. Although some studies have published data about the use of flavored e-liquid, there is no standardized way to group flavors, making it difficult to interpret the data and replicate results across studies. The current study describes a method to classify user-reported e-liquid flavors and presents the resulting proportion of users in each flavor group in a large online survey of e-cig users. METHODS: Three thousand seven hundred sixteen participants completed an online survey about their e-cig use and responded to the following open-ended question regarding their use of e-liquid, "What is your favorite flavor and what brand of flavored liquid do you prefer?" Researchers used a 3 step method to determine the flavor attributes present in the e-liquids reported using an online search engine. Once all flavor attributes were identified, researchers used the constant comparative method to group the flavor attributes and delineate how to classify flavors with mixed components (eg, cinnamon Red Hots as a candy not a spice). RESULTS: The resulting classification scheme and proportions of e-liquids in each category were as follows: Tobacco (23.7%), Menthol/mint (14.8%), Fruit (20.3%), Dessert/sweets (20.7%), Alcohol (2.8%), Nuts/spices (2.0%), Candy (2.1%), Coffee/tea (4.3%), Beverage (3.1%), Unflavored (0.4%), and Don't Know/Other (5.8%). CONCLUSION: To better understand the use of flavored e-liquids, standardized methods to classify the flavors could facilitate data interpretation and comparison across studies. This study proposes a method for classifying the characterizing flavors in e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. IMPLICATIONS: Current studies on the use of flavored e-liquid have used unclear methods to collect and report information on the use of flavors. This study adds a proposed method for classifying the flavors in the e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. With a clear and explicit method for classifying self-reported flavors, future study results may be more easily compared.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
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: Sarah E Adkison; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Andrew Hyland; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; K Michael Cummings; Ann McNeill; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Bridget K Ambrose; Hannah R Day; Brian Rostron; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Andrew Hyland; Andrea C Villanti Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Shannon Gravely; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; Mi Yan; Anne C K Quah; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; Sara C Hitchman; Ann McNeill; David Hammond; James F Thrasher; Marc C Willemsen; Hong Gwan Seo; Yuan Jiang; Tania Cavalcante; Cristina Perez; Maizurah Omar; Karin Hummel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Barry G Green; Grace Kong; Dana A Cavallo; Peter Jatlow; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Eugenia Buta; Stephanie S O'Malley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Adam M Leventhal; Nicholas I Goldenson; Junhan Cho; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Rob S McConnell; Matthew D Stone; Raina D Pang; Janet Audrain-McGovern; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Adam M Leventhal; Nicholas I Goldenson; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Raina D Pang; Matthew G Kirkpatrick Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Robyn L Landry; Allison L Groom; Thanh-Huyen T Vu; Andrew C Stokes; Kaitlyn M Berry; Anshula Kesh; Joy L Hart; Kandi L Walker; Aida L Giachello; Clara G Sears; Kathleen L McGlasson; Lindsay K Tompkins; Delvon T Mattingly; Rose Marie Robertson; Thomas J Payne Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Alison Breland; Sarah F Maloney; Eric K Soule; Carolina Ramôa; Andrew Barnes; Thokozeni Lipato; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Exp Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Zachary T Bitzer; Reema Goel; Samantha M Reilly; Ryan J Elias; Alexey Silakov; Jonathan Foulds; Joshua Muscat; John P Richie Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Silvia Cirillo; Jose F Urena; Joshua D Lambert; Fabio Vivarelli; Donatella Canistro; Moreno Paolini; Vladimiro Cardenia; Maria Teresa Rodriguez-Estrada; John P Richie; Ryan J Elias Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 3.271