Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40041956›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025

Recommendations for future research exploring e-cigarette use and later cigarette smoking in young people: Results from a consultation exercise.

Monserrat Conde, Michael F Pesko, Lion Shahab, Rachna Begh, Nicola Lindson, Sarah E Jackson, Dimitra Kale, Dylan Kneale, Jonathan Livingstone-Banks, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Monserrat CondeNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9669-9180
Michael F PeskoDepartment of Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9247-9703
Lion ShahabDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4033-442X
Rachna BeghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Nicola LindsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2539-9268
Sarah E JacksonDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5658-6168
Dimitra KaleDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8845-7114
Dylan KnealeEvidence for Policy and Practice Information Centre (EPPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, UK.
Jonathan Livingstone-BanksNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3757-5591
Jamie Hartmann-BoyceNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

The Impacts of Vaping Regulations on Perceptions, Access, Prices, and Tobacco UseR01DA045016 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Michael Pesko · 2018 to 2026
$4.2M
Cancer Research UK PPRCTAGPJT\100002NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA045016NIH HHS R01DA045016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsExploring the relationship between vaping and smoking in young people is a key area of research that can inform e-cigarette policy. Rigorous evidence mapping and synthesis have highlighted gaps and methodological concerns in the evidence base. This study provides recommendations for the conduct and reporting of future quantitative primary research exploring e-cigarette use and later cigarette smoking in young people (≤29 years).

methodsWe developed a draft version of recommendations based on the critical appraisal of studies, findings of a systematic review and an evidence and gap map. We used an anonymized on-line survey to run a consultation exercise with stakeholders, including researchers, non-profit/charity workers and clinicians. Respondents rated the perceived importance of each draft recommendation on a 5-point Likert scale and provided open-ended comments, where relevant. We developed a final set of recommendations based on this stakeholder input.

resultsWe initially came up with a list of 22 recommendations, which 36 stakeholders rated in the on-line survey. Most were researchers (n = 26) and from the USA (n = 18). Following feedback, this resulted in a final set of 23 recommendations, including recommendations for planning, data collection, data analysis and reporting. Examining causes of differences in vaping-smoking associations, including equity factors (e.g. socioeconomic status) and contextual factors (e.g. jurisdiction levels), and generating representative longitudinal data from countries other than the USA, Canada and UK, particularly low- and middle-income countries, were strongly endorsed recommendations. A new recommendation to report characteristics of e-cigarettes (e.g. flavours) was added.

conclusionsThis study provides 23 recommendations for conducting and reporting future quantitative research exploring e-cigarette use/availability and later combustible cigarette smoking in young people. Most of the recommendations are specific to studies using repeat cross-sectional data tracking population trends and to longitudinal cohort studies tracking behaviours in individuals.

Indexed as

Cigarette SmokingElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsVapingAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adultelectronic cigarettesrecommendationssmokingvapingyoung peopleyouth

Identifiers

PMID40041956
PMCPMC12215211

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.