Jennifer L Pearson1,2, Domonique M Reed3,4, Andrea C Villanti2,5. 1. Division of Social and Behavioral Health/Health Administration and Policy, School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV. 2. Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 3. U.S. Military HIV Research Program, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD. 4. Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD. 5. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A diverse class of products, "e-cigarettes" present surveillance and regulatory challenges because of nonstandard terminology used to describe subtypes, especially among young adults, where occasional e-cig use is most prevalent. METHODS:Young adults (n = 3364) in wave 9 (Spring 2016) of the Truth Initiative Young Adult Cohort were randomized to see two of five photos of common e-cig products (three varieties of first-generation e-cigs and one variety each of second- and third-generation e-cigs). Qualitative responses were coded into nine classifications: "e-cigarette, e-hookah, vape-related, mod, other or more than one kind of e-cig, marijuana-related, non-e-cig tobacco product, misidentified, and don't know." We characterized the sample and survey responses and conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify participant characteristics associated with correctly identifying the devices as e-cigs. Data were weighted to represent the young adult population in the United States in 2016. RESULTS: The majority of participants identified the pictured devices as some type of e-cig (57.7%-83.6%). The white first-generation e-cig, as well as the second- and third-generation e-cigs caused the greatest confusion, with a large proportion of individuals responding "don't know" (12.2%-25.1%, depending on device) or misidentifying the e-cig as a non-nicotine product (3.4%-16.1%, depending on device) or non-e-cig tobacco product (1.4%-14.6%, depending on device). CONCLUSIONS: Accurate surveillance and analyses of the effect of e-cigs on health behavior and outcomes depend on accurate data collection on users' subtype of e-cig. Carefully chosen images in surveys may improve reporting of e-cig use in population studies. IMPLICATIONS: Survey researchers using images to cue respondents, especially young adult respondents, should consider avoiding use of white or colorful first-generation e-cigs, which were commonly misidentified in this research, in preference for black or dark colored first-generation e-cigs, such as the blu brand e-cig. Given the sizable proportion of respondents who classified second- and third-generation e-cigs with terminology related to vaping, surveys specifically aimed at assessing use of these types of e-cigs should include the term "vape" when describing this subclass of devices.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: A diverse class of products, "e-cigarettes" present surveillance and regulatory challenges because of nonstandard terminology used to describe subtypes, especially among young adults, where occasional e-cig use is most prevalent. METHODS: Young adults (n = 3364) in wave 9 (Spring 2016) of the Truth Initiative Young Adult Cohort were randomized to see two of five photos of common e-cig products (three varieties of first-generation e-cigs and one variety each of second- and third-generation e-cigs). Qualitative responses were coded into nine classifications: "e-cigarette, e-hookah, vape-related, mod, other or more than one kind of e-cig, marijuana-related, non-e-cig tobacco product, misidentified, and don't know." We characterized the sample and survey responses and conducted multivariable logistic regression to identify participant characteristics associated with correctly identifying the devices as e-cigs. Data were weighted to represent the young adult population in the United States in 2016. RESULTS: The majority of participants identified the pictured devices as some type of e-cig (57.7%-83.6%). The white first-generation e-cig, as well as the second- and third-generation e-cigs caused the greatest confusion, with a large proportion of individuals responding "don't know" (12.2%-25.1%, depending on device) or misidentifying the e-cig as a non-nicotine product (3.4%-16.1%, depending on device) or non-e-cig tobacco product (1.4%-14.6%, depending on device). CONCLUSIONS: Accurate surveillance and analyses of the effect of e-cigs on health behavior and outcomes depend on accurate data collection on users' subtype of e-cig. Carefully chosen images in surveys may improve reporting of e-cig use in population studies. IMPLICATIONS: Survey researchers using images to cue respondents, especially young adult respondents, should consider avoiding use of white or colorful first-generation e-cigs, which were commonly misidentified in this research, in preference for black or dark colored first-generation e-cigs, such as the blu brand e-cig. Given the sizable proportion of respondents who classified second- and third-generation e-cigs with terminology related to vaping, surveys specifically aimed at assessing use of these types of e-cigs should include the term "vape" when describing this subclass of devices.
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: Jennifer P Alexander; Blair N Coleman; Sarah E Johnson; Greta K Tessman; Cindy Tworek; Denise M Dickinson Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2016-07-01
Authors: Jennifer L Pearson; Sara C Hitchman; Leonie S Brose; Linda Bauld; Allison M Glasser; Andrea C Villanti; Ann McNeill; David B Abrams; Joanna E Cohen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Daniel P Giovenco; Dustin T Duncan; Elliot J Coups; M Jane Lewis; Cristine D Delnevo Journal: Health Place Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer L Pearson; Allison M Glasser; Amanda L Johnson; Lauren K Collins; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Steven H Kelder; Dale S Mantey; Duncan Van Dusen; Tara Vaughn; Marcella Bianco; Andrew E Springer Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.913
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
Authors: Katrina F Trivers; Andrea S Gentzke; Elyse Phillips; Michael Tynan; Kristy L Marynak; Gillian L Schauer Journal: Addict Behav Rep Date: 2019-10-17