Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Addict Behav. 2018 Apr;79:203-212. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.016. Epub 2017 Nov 16.

Establishing consensus on survey measures for electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery system use: Current challenges and considerations for researchers.

Author information

1
School of Public Health, Georgia State University, PO Box 3995, Atlanta, GA 30302-3995, USA. Electronic address: srweaver@gsu.edu.
2
Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research, 1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 400, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. Electronic address: kimh@battelle.org.
3
The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, 900 G St. NW, Floor Four, Washington, DC, 20001, USA. Electronic address: aglasser@truthinitiative.org.
4
Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd., Winston-Salem, NC, USA. Electronic address: esutfin@wakehealth.edu.
5
Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 N. Soto Street, Los Angeles, CA, USA. Electronic address: jtrimis@usc.edu.
6
Department of Otolaryngology and Communicative Sciences, ACT Center for Tobacco Treatment, Education and Research, 350 West Woodrow Wilson Drive, JMM Suite 611, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, 39213, USA. Electronic address: tjpayne1@umc.edu.
7
Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Nicotine Addiction, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3535 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Electronic address: meganlsa@upenn.edu.
8
Department of Kinesiology & Health Education, University of Texas at Austin, 2109 San Jacinto Blvd Mail Stop D3700, Austin, TX 78712, USA. Electronic address: alexandra.loukas@austin.utexas.edu.

Abstract

The development and validation of survey measures for electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery system (ENDS) use has not kept pace with the burgeoning research on them. This, along with the diverse and evolving nature of ENDS, presents several unique measurement challenges and hampers surveillance and tobacco regulatory research efforts. In this commentary, we identify four important areas related to ENDS use (describing ENDS products; defining current use; evaluating frequency and quantity of use; and characterizing devices and e-liquids) and summarize a selective review of the measurement and definitions of these constructs across prominent national tobacco use surveys and 30 projects within the 14 federally-funded Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science. Across these national, regional, and local studies, there was considerable variability and relatively little consensus in ENDS use measures - thus highlighting the need for caution when comparing findings across studies or over time until more research is available to evaluate the sensitivity of findings to differing measures. Drawing from the nascent ENDS use measurement research literature and our experiences, we conclude with general considerations for measuring ENDS use for tobacco researchers as an initial step towards the development of consensus measures.

KEYWORDS:

Consensus measures; E-cigarette; Electronic cigarette; Electronic nicotine device systems; Measurement

PMID:
29173942
PMCID:
PMC5807235
[Available on 2019-04-01]
DOI:
10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.016

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center