Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30948599›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Young adult perceptions of JUUL and other pod electronic cigarette devices in California: a qualitative study.

Emily Keamy-Minor, Julia McQuoid, Pamela M Ling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. #NicotineAddictionCheck: Puff Bar Culture, Addiction Apathy, and Promotion of E-Cigarettes on TikTok.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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.

Emily Keamy-MinorDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA.
Julia McQuoidDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA.
Pamela M LingDepartment of Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA.

Funding

Understanding Smokeless Tobacco MarketingR01CA141661 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2009 to 2019
$5.4M
Postdoctoral training in tobacco controlT32CA113710 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LING, PAMELA MAY · 2016 to 2020
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA141661NCI NIH HHS T32 CA113710
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveElectronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) which utilise prefilled

designQualitative interview study of young adults who had used pod devices. Participants were recruited from Facebook, other social media, street recruitment and via snowball sampling.

settingParticipants were from California, with most from the San Francisco Bay Area.

participantsYoung adults (aged 18-29 years) using multiple tobacco products (cigarettes, e-cigarettes and/or smokeless tobacco) were recruited. Of the sample of 60 participants, 24 were included in this analysis: 10 who reported experience with pod devices and 14 who used other non-pod e-cigarette devices.

resultsTen participants had used a pod device in the past year. Of the pod device users, seven still used a pod device at the time of the interview and five did so daily. Nearly all (n=9) pod device users smoked cigarettes in the past month; none were daily smokers. The 14 participants who used non-pod devices provided a point of comparison. Participants highlighted some distinct aspects of pod devices that facilitated use, including their aesthetic similarity to personal electronics, high levels of nicotine delivery with distinct psychoactive effects, more discreet and shorter duration use sessions, and greater social acceptability than more ostentatious non-pod e-cigarettes.

conclusionsPod devices' unique characteristics likely encourage pod device uptake among young people. Limitations on advertising in youth channels, flavours and distribution, and education about nicotine addiction may decrease initiation among young people and non-smokers.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthQualitative ResearchSocial MediaAdolescentAdultAdvertisingElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleSan FranciscoSmokingSurveys and QuestionnairesTobacco ProductsYoung Adultelectronic nicotine delivery devicespublic healthqualitative researchsubstance misusetobacco

Identifiers

PMID30948599
PMCPMC6500190

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.