Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26576338›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports

Smokers' sources of e-cigarette awareness and risk information.

Olivia A Wackowski, Michelle T Bover Manderski, Cristine D Delnevo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. An Experimental Study of Nicotine Warning Statements in E-cigarette Tweets.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Impact of Smokers' Information-Seeking Behavior on Smoking Cessation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. From the Deeming Rule to JUUL-US News Coverage of Electronic Cigarettes, 2015-2018.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Olivia A WackowskiRutgers School of Public Health, Center for Tobacco Studies, 335 George Street, Suite 2100, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.
Michelle T Bover ManderskiRutgers School of Public Health, Center for Tobacco Studies, 335 George Street, Suite 2100, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.
Cristine D DelnevoRutgers School of Public Health, Center for Tobacco Studies, 335 George Street, Suite 2100, New Brunswick, NJ 08901.

Funding

Developing and testing warning statements about e-cigarettesK01CA189301 · NCI · RBHS-SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI WACKOWSKI, OLIVIA · 2014 to 2016
$478k
NCI NIH HHS K01 CA189301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFew studies have explored sources of e-cigarette awareness and peoples' e-cigarette information needs, interests or behaviors. This study contributes to both domains of e-cigarette research.

methodsResults are based on a 2014 e-cigarette focused survey of 519 current smokers from a nationally representative research panel.

resultsSmokers most frequently reported seeing e-cigarettes in stores (86.4%) and used in person (83%). Many (73%) had also heard about e-cigarettes from known users, broadcast media ads (68%), other (print, online) advertisements (71.5%), and/or from the news (60.9%); sources of awareness varied by e-cigarette experience. Most smokers (59.9%) believed e-cigarettes are less harmful than regular cigarettes, a belief attributed to "common sense" (76.4%), the news (39.2%) and advertisements (37.2%). However, 79.5% felt e-cigarette safety information was important. Over one-third said they would turn to a doctor first for e-cigarette safety information, though almost a quarter said they would turn to the Internet or product packaging first. Most (59.6%) ranked doctors as the most trustworthy risk source, and 6.8% had asked a health professional about e-cigarettes.

conclusionsFuture research should explore the content of e-cigarette information sources, their potential impact, and ways they might be strengthened or changed through regulatory and/or educational efforts.

Identifiers

PMID26576338
PMCPMC4643950

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.