Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37218410›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2023

Perceptions about levels of harmful chemicals in e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes, and associations with relative e-cigarette harm perceptions, e-cigarette use and interest.

Olivia A Wackowski, Michelle T Bover Manderski, Stefanie K Gratale, Caitlin V Weiger, Richard J O'Connor

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Impact of Survey Item Wording and Response Options on Prevalence of Beliefs About Nicotine Causing Cancer: A Randomized Survey Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Olivia A WackowskiRutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9159-5473
Michelle T Bover ManderskiRutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Stefanie K GrataleRutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Caitlin V WeigerRutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Richard J O'ConnorDepartment of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0644-182X
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USRoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tobacco Industry Marketing CoreU54CA229973 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI CAPPELLA, JOSEPH NICHOLAS · 2018 to 2022
$18.8M
Perceptions and Impact of Modified Risk Tobacco Product Communication MessagesR37CA222002 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WACKOWSKI, OLIVIA · 2018 to 2023
$2.1M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA222002NCI NIH HHS U54 CA229973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsExposure to chemicals contributes to harm from nicotine products, and e-cigarette communications often refer to chemicals. However, while e-cigarette studies commonly measure perceived harmfulness of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes, few have assessed comparative perceptions about chemicals. This study measured perceived levels of harmful chemicals in e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes and associations with e-cigarette/cigarette relative harm perceptions, e-cigarette use and interest. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsThis was an on-line cross-sectional survey of adults/young adults from a nationally representative research panel in the United States conducted in January 2021. Participants were independent samples of 1018 adults who smoked cigarettes and 1051 young adult non-smokers (aged 18-29 years). MEASUREMENTS: Participants were asked their perceptions of the level of harmful chemicals in e-cigarettes versus cigarettes (fewer/about the same/more/do not know), perceived harmfulness of using e-cigarette versus cigarettes (less/about the same/more/do not know) and their current e-cigarette use and use interest.

findingsApproximately 20% of all participants (18.1% of adult smokers, and 21.0% of young adult non-smokers) believed e-cigarettes contain fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes, while 35.6% of adult smokers and 24.9% of young adult non-smokers responded 'do not know'. Participants more frequently reported 'do not know' to the chemicals item than the harm item. Approximately half (51.0-55.7%) of those who believed e-cigarettes contain fewer harmful chemicals also believed e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes. Both beliefs were associated with higher odds of interest in using e-cigarettes [less harmful belief, odds ratio (OR) = 5.53, 95% confidence interval (CI = 2.93-10.43); fewer chemicals belief, OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.40-4.29] and past 30-day e-cigarette use (less harmful belief, OR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.17-5.44; fewer chemicals belief, OR = 5.09, 95% CI = 2.31-11.19) for adults who smoke, but not young adult non-smokers.

conclusionsIn the United States, most adults who smoke cigarettes and young adult non-smokers do not appear to think that e-cigarettes have fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes, and many are uncertain about how these levels compare.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsTobacco ProductsVapingCross-Sectional StudiesHumansNicotineUnited StatesNicotineChemicalsE-cigarettesharm reductionssmokerssurveyyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID37218410
PMCPMC10640892
OpenAlexW4377565667

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.