Electronic cigarette survey characteristics

• Main Authors: Jonathan Kopel, Jeff A. Dennis, Kenneth Nugent
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2020-05-01
• Series: Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Perspectives
• Subjects: e-cigarettes; surveys; methodology
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20009666.2020.1766841

Introduction Electronic cigarettes (EC) remain a controversial topic with uncertainty about harm reduction in current smokers, their efficacy in smoking cessation, their potential for addiction, the need for regulation, and the type of information needed to educate the public about the benefits and hazards of EC. Multiple medical institutions and organizations have conducted surveys to investigate the demographics and perceptions of EC consumers in adult and youth populations. However, it is unknown whether these surveys use consistent, reliable, or accurate measures for EC use. Methods We analyzed 13 survey articles identified during a review of the use of EC during smoking cessation programs to determine the characteristic features of the surveys and to determine how frequently they satisfied the measurement of important core items suggested by recent articles. Results Our analysis focused on 13 studies. These studies represented the work of 13 separate research groups and were published in 10 different biomedical journals with a median impact factor score of 4.1. The median number of participants in the studies was 2,624 (Q1-Q3: 662–6,356); the number of participants ranged from 179 to 19,414. The median number of e-cigarette users in the surveys was 840 (Q1-Q3: 256–3,849). All studies provided clear study goals in their introduction. Five surveys used on-line methods to collect information; four studies provided limited information about the reliability of their data. All studies reported study outcomes and considered limitations. Five studies had limited external validity. None of the surveys collected a complete set of core information recommended by recent authorities on survey methodology for EC. Conclusions The surveys reviewed in this project had significant variability in study design, survey population, and study goals. Consequently, comparisons across studies become difficult and limit the external validity of survey studies on EC.