Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27595498›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2017

Knowledge about Chemicals in e-Cigarette Secondhand Vapor and Perceived Harms of Exposure among a National Sample of U.S. Adults.

Andy S L Tan, Susan Mello, Ashley Sanders-Jackson, Cabral A Bigman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Vaping in the Workplace: Prevalence and Attitudes Among Employed US Adults.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Electronic cigarette survey characteristics.Journal of community hospital internal medicine perspectives · 2020
    Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andy S L TanDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Population Sciences Division, Center for Community Based Research, Boston, MA, USA.
Susan MelloDepartment of Communication Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Ashley Sanders-JacksonDepartment of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Cabral A BigmanDepartment of Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute · USMichigan State University · USNortheastern University · USUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · US

Funding

Training / Career DevelopmentP20CA095856 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI HORNIK, ROBERT C. · 2008 to 2012
$8.7M
CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION TRAINING PROGRAMT32HL007034 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GARDNER, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2020
$8.7M
NCI NIH HHS P20 CA095856NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Potentially harmful chemicals are detectable in e-cigarette secondhand vapor (hereafter SHV), contrary to advertising and marketing claims that it contains "only water vapor." We assessed public knowledge about the presence of chemicals in SHV and associations between knowledge and perceived harms of exposure to SHV. We conducted an online survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,449 U.S. adults (GfK's KnowledgePanel) from October to December 2013. Respondents were asked whether e-cigarette vapor contains only water vapor, contains tar, or contains formaldehyde (true/ false/ do not know). Responses to these three items were recoded (1 = incorrect, 2 = do not know, and 3 = correct) and averaged into a knowledge scale. They were also asked if they perceived breathing SHV to be harmful to one's health (two-item scale) and comparative harm of breathing SHV versus breathing secondhand smoke (SHS). Multiple regression analyses were weighted to the U.S. adult population and adjusted for potential confounders. Most respondents (58-75%) reported not knowing whether SHV contained only water vapor, if SHV contained tar, and if it contained formaldehyde. African-American respondents (vs. white) and current smokers (vs. nonsmokers) had lower levels of knowledge about chemicals in SHV. Adjusting for covariates, correct knowledge about chemicals in SHV was associated with higher perceived harms about SHV for one's health and perceived comparative harm of SHV versus SHS. These findings suggest a need to provide accurate information about the presence of chemicals in SHV (e.g., using product ingredient labels or public education).

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleFormaldehydeGasesHumansKnowledgeMaleRegression AnalysisSmokingSurveys and QuestionnairesTobacco Smoke PollutionUnited StatesFormaldehydeGasesTobacco Smoke PollutionWaterChemicals in secondhand vaporelectronic cigaretteperceived harmpublic beliefs

Identifiers

PMID27595498
PMCPMC5567734
OpenAlexW2513799386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.