ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
E-Cigarettes: Harmful or Harm-Reducing? Evaluation of a Novel Online CME Program for Health Care Providers.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does media channel matter? exploring the disparities of online and offline anti-tobacco messages and their impacts on e-cigarette harm perception and use.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of the Knowledge and Perceptions of Pharmacy Staff and Pre-Registration Students of E-Cigarettes Use: A Systematic Review.Tobacco use insights · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimPatients are asking health care providers about e-cigarettes, vaping, and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). Provider advice on ENDS has varied greatly, suggesting a need for evidence-based continuing medical education (CME).
settingA novel free online CME course was developed on ENDS risks and benefits, product types (e.g., vape pens, pods), and screening and counseling best practices for adults, adolescents, and different smoker profiles (e.g., daily, social).
participantsFrom January 2017 through June 2018, 1061 individuals accessed the course: 46% physicians, 7% physician assistants, 7% nurse practitioners, 15% nurses, 4% pharmacists, and 28% allied health/student/other; 41% were international. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The course was built from observed online patient-provider interactions. Through video role-plays, expert interviews, and interactive activities, the course engaged learners in the evidence on ENDS. Completers earned 1.5 CME units. PROGRAM EVALUATION: A total of 555 health care providers earned 832.5 CME units. Pre- to post-test scores significantly increased from 57 to 90%; 76% rated the course as above average (41%) or outstanding (35%); 99% indicated the course was free of commercial bias. DISCUSSION: Addressing the growing need for balanced provider education on ENDS, this interactive online CME engaged learners and increased knowledge on devices and evidence-based cessation approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.