| Literature DB >> 28624764 |
Jennifer L Pearson1,2, Sara C Hitchman3,4, Leonie S Brose3,4, Linda Bauld4,5, Allison M Glasser1, Andrea C Villanti1,2, Ann McNeill3,4, David B Abrams1,2, Joanna E Cohen2.
Abstract
A consistent approach using standardised items to assess e-cigarette use in both youth and adult populations will aid cross-survey and cross-national comparisons of the effect of e-cigarette (and tobacco) policies and improve our understanding of the population health impact of e-cigarette use. Focusing on adult behaviour, we propose a set of e-cigarette use items, discuss their utility and potential adaptation, and highlight e-cigarette constructs that researchers should avoid without further item development. Reliable and valid items will strengthen the emerging science and inform knowledge synthesis for policy-making. Building on informal discussions at a series of international meetings of 65 experts from 15 countries, the authors provide recommendations for assessing e-cigarette use behaviour, relative perceived harm, device type, presence of nicotine, flavours and reasons for use. We recommend items assessing eight core constructs: e-cigarette ever use, frequency of use and former daily use; relative perceived harm; device type; primary flavour preference; presence of nicotine; and primary reason for use. These items should be standardised or minimally adapted for the policy context and target population. Researchers should be prepared to update items as e-cigarette device characteristics change. A minimum set of e-cigarette items is proposed to encourage consensus around items to allow for cross-survey and cross-jurisdictional comparisons of e-cigarette use behaviour. These proposed items are a starting point. We recognise room for continued improvement, and welcome input from e-cigarette users and scientific colleagues. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.Entities:
Keywords: Electronic nicotine delivery devices; Public policy; Surveillance and monitoring
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28624764 PMCID: PMC6934252 DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053541
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tob Control ISSN: 0964-4563 Impact factor: 7.552