Observational studyBMJ open2022
Feasibility and acceptability of remote procedures to study tobacco product use and respiratory health: an observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noninvasive repeated sampling technique reveals specific respiratory cytokine signatures for people who use electronic-cigarette and dual-products obtained from a remote cohort of young adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026Article
- Best Practices and Recommendations for Research Using Virtual Real-Time Data Collection: Protocol for Virtual Data Collection Studies.JMIR research protocols · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveObtaining ecologically valid biological samples is critical for understanding respiratory effects of tobacco use, but can be burdensome. In two diverse samples, we examined feasibility and acceptability of studying pulmonary function and respiratory health entirely remotely.
designObservational feasibility and acceptability study. SETTING AND
participantsAdults age 18-25 (Biomedical Respiratory Effects Associated through Habitual Use of E-Cigarettes [BREATHE] Study) and 21-65 (Adult IQOS Respiratory [AIRS] Study) recruited from previous research studies and advertisements in Southern California, USA (BREATHE (AIRS): N=77 (N=31) completed baseline, n=64 (n=20) completed feasibility and acceptability measures). Shared inclusion criteria for the two studies were ownership of a smartphone, willingness to download applications and English fluency. In addition, BREATHE participants reported one of three tobacco use patterns. AIRS participants smoked daily and were willing to use a heated tobacco product. Exclusion criteria were medical contraindications.
interventionsA 4-week study consisted of five virtual study visits, twice daily ecological momentary assessment diaries and spirometry assessments, and weekly Nasal Epithelial Lining Fluid and saliva collection. All study visits were conducted via video conference; study materials and biospecimens were exchanged via mail. Participants reported feasibility and acceptability of daily diaries, breath tests, biospecimen collection and shipments. MEASURES: Surveys assessed perceptions of timing and overall experience of daily diaries and breath tests, difficulty of and overall experience with biospecimen collection, and experience sending and receiving shipments.
resultsMost participants evaluated daily diaries and breath tests as manageable (62.5%-95.0%) and likeable (54.7%-70.0%). Breath tests were frequently described as 'interesting' (55.0%-57.8%) and 'easy' (25.0%-48.4%). Most participants reported that biospecimen collection was easy (50.0%-85.0%), and that shipments were easy to send (87.5%-95.0%), receive (95.3%-95.0%) and schedule (56.3%-60.0%). No participants received shipments in poor condition.
conclusionsRemote research procedures may be feasible and acceptable to facilitate tobacco research studies, potentially resulting in more diverse samples of participants and more generalisable research results.
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.