Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38839597›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025

Harm perceptions across vaping product features: An on-line cross-sectional survey of adults who smoke and/or vape in the United Kingdom.

Katherine East, Giang Vu, Tianze Sun, Kimberly D'Mello, Parvati Rose Perman-Howe, Eve Taylor, Matilda Nottage, Leonie Sarah Brose, Deborah Robson, Ann McNeill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Investigating the Appeal of Nicotine Pouch Packaging, Flavour, and Nicotine Descriptors Among Adults in the UK: An Online Experiment.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Katherine EastNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9083-2131
Giang VuNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Tianze SunNational Centre for Youth Substance Use Research, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3939-9499
Kimberly D'MelloSchool of Public Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Parvati Rose Perman-HoweNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2247-4990
Eve TaylorNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Matilda NottageNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5718-2971
Leonie Sarah BroseNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6503-6854
Deborah RobsonNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6447-3523
Ann McNeillNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6223-4000

Funding

Vaporized Nicotine Product Initiation Among Youth in the US, Canada, and England: Methods to Predict Uptake and Policy EfficacyP01CA200512 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI FONG, GEOFFREY T · 2016 to 2025
$25.3M
Canada Graduate Scholarships-Master's programme grantCanadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Michael Smith Foreign Study SupplementCancer Research UKCancer Research UK (CRUK)CIHR Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplement and CanadaEconomic and Social Research Council LISS DTPESRC LISS DTPMedical Research Council MR/S037519/1National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitNational Institutes of Health Research NIHR South London ARCNCI NIH HHS P01 CA200512NIH HHS 1P01CA200512NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Exposures and HealthNIHR South London ARCSociety for the Study of Addiction FellowshipSPECTRUM ConsortiumThe University of Queensland Higher Degree by Research ScholarshipsUK Research and Innovation MR/S037519/1UK Research and Innovation CouncilsUK Society for the Study of Addiction (SSA)University of Queensland Higher Degree by Research Scholarships
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsVaping products are diverse with a wide variety of features, and popular products change rapidly. This study examined the features and types of vaping products that people who smoke and/or vape perceive contribute to the health harms of vaping. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsThis was a cross-sectional survey co-designed with adults who smoked/vaped and pre-registered. An on-line survey (November 2022) was used of a convenience sample of adults in the United Kingdom who smoked and/or vaped (n = 494). MEASUREMENTS: As primary outcomes, respondents were asked to select any of 15 vaping product features they perceived might have any effect on the health harms of vaping (for each: selected, not selected). Independent variables were smoking/vaping status (smoke and vape; vape, formerly smoked; vape, never regularly smoked; smoke, do not currently vape); relative vaping harm perceptions [less harmful than smoking (accurate), equally/more harmful than smoking or do not know/refused (other)]. Binary logistic regressions were used to compare outcomes by current vaping/smoking status and relative harm perceptions, adjusting for age and sex.

findingsMost people (54.7%) selected between one and three features. The most frequently selected were nicotine concentration (62.2%) and amount of e-liquid consumed (59.1%), followed by nicotine type (e.g. salt or freebase; 33.0%), source/purchase location (25.3%), flavours (24.7%), temperature to heat e-liquid (21.1%), heat produced by device (20.9%), e-liquid brand (20.9%), amount of emissions (18.6%), device type (e.g. disposable, pod, tank; 17.2%), material of tank (17.0%), power/wattage (13.0%), device brand (8.1%), device size (4.1%) and device weight (2.4%). Higher nicotine concentrations, more e-liquid and salt (versus freebase) nicotine were perceived to confer greater harms. Disposables were perceived as slightly more harmful than reusable devices. There were few differences by current vaping/smoking status and between those with accurate (versus other) harm perceptions of vaping relative to smoking (P > 0.05 for most contrasts, adjusting for age and sex).

conclusionsCertain features and types of vaping products [higher nicotine concentrations, more e-liquid consumed and salt (versus freebase) nicotine] were perceived to confer greater health harms among a sample of UK adults who smoked and/or vaped. Findings are consistent with pervasive misperceptions that nicotine is a major cause of harm, although e-liquid volume is likely to contribute to harms.

Indexed as

Electronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsVapingAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomYoung AdultHarm reductionperceptionsrisksmokingsurveyvaping

Identifiers

PMID38839597
PMCPMC11813726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.