Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34150479›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021

Qualitative insights on how adult e-cigarette users describe quantity of e-cigarettes used - PATH Study 2018.

Sherry T Liu, Jocelyn Newsome, Victoria Castleman, Karl Poonai, MeLisa R Creamer, Heather L Kimmel, Izabella Zandberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Abuse Liability of Electronic Cigarettes in Never-Smoking Electronic Cigarette Users.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Retrospective and Real-time Measures of the Quantity of E-cigarette Use: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Sherry T LiuOffice of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
Jocelyn NewsomeWestat, Rockville, MD, United States.
Victoria CastlemanWestat, Rockville, MD, United States.
Karl PoonaiOffice of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.
MeLisa R CreamerNational Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Heather L KimmelNational Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Izabella ZandbergOffice of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this qualitative study was to gain a deeper understanding of how adult e-cigarette users describe quantity of e-cigarettes used. Data for this analysis came from a qualitative study of U.S. adult dual e-cigarette and cigarette users and former cigarette smokers aged 18 years and older. Eligible respondents from Wave 4 (2016-2017) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study responded to a brief web questionnaire and participated in an in-depth telephone interview (n = 112) between March and August 2018. Using the respondent's native terminology for their e-cigarette device, interviewers asked respondents to describe in their own words the quantity of e-cigarettes used. Using NVivo software, interview transcripts were coded and analyzed to identify themes and patterns. Respondents described quantity used in three different ways: number of times and/or puffs; device-specific terms (i.e., replacement of disposable devices, cartridges/pods; use of e-liquid); and perceived equivalence to a quantity of traditional cigarettes. The most commonly reported approach across all device types and levels of device proficiency, although with varying ease and specificity, was the number of times and/or puffs taken in a day. Several respondents used multiple approaches to describe quantity. E-cigarette users use a variety of approaches to describe quantity of e-cigarette used, contributing to challenges developing standardized survey measures. The variety of approaches should be taken into consideration along with device type and other contextual factors such as device proficiency when developing survey questions.

Indexed as

AdultsE-cigarette useQualitative studyQuantity

Identifiers

PMID34150479
PMCPMC8190467

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.