A content analysis of electronic cigarette manufacturer websites in China

Yao, Tingting; Jiang, Nan; Grana, Rachel; Ling, Pamela M.; Glantz, Stanton A.

doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051840

Cited by 56 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5,111,555,709,753 The most common claims advertise ENDS as a healthier alternative to cigarettes, 111,433,708,709,729,753 and a way to circumvent smoking bans. 708,751,752,754 Advertisements also highlight celebrity use to appeal to youth.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review

Glasser

Collins

Pearson

et al. 2017

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

414

332

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Rapid developments in e-cigarettes, or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), and the evolution of the overall tobacco product marketplace warrant frequent evaluation of the published literature. The purpose of this article is to report updated findings from a comprehensive review of the published scientific literature on ENDS. Evidence acquisition The authors conducted a systematic review of published empirical research literature on ENDS through May 31, 2016, using a detailed search strategy in the PubMed electronic database, expert review, and additional targeted searches. Included studies presented empirical findings and were coded to at least one of nine topics: (1) Product Features; (2) Health Effects; (3) Consumer Perceptions; (4) Patterns of Use; (5) Potential to Induce Dependence; (6) Smoking Cessation; (7) Marketing and Communication; (8) Sales; and (9) Policies; reviews and commentaries were excluded. Data from included studies were extracted by multiple coders (October 2015 to August 2016) into a standardized form and synthesized qualitatively by topic. Evidence synthesis There were 686 articles included in this systematic review. The majority of studies assessed patterns of ENDS use and consumer perceptions of ENDS, followed by studies examining health effects of vaping and product features. Conclusions Studies indicate that ENDS are increasing in use, particularly among current smokers, pose substantially less harm to smokers than cigarettes, are being used to reduce/quit smoking, and are widely available. More longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to evaluate the impact of ENDS on population-level tobacco use and determine the health effects of longer-term vaping.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review

Glasser

Collins

Pearson

et al. 2017

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

414

332

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interest in quitting cigarette smoking is a common reason for using e-cigarettes, 3,4 probably because claims of efficacy as a cessation aid have appeared in e-cigarette advertisements in the USA, 9 UK, 8 and China 10 even though such claims had not been accepted by regulatory authorities. E-cigarettes are also marketed as a way to circumvent smoke-free policies, 8,9 and could be used as such by nicotine-dependent individuals who have lower baseline intentions of quitting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,2 Adults report various motivations for e-cigarette use, including to help them quit cigarettes and allowing them to continue to use nicotine in areas where smoking is prohibited, 3–7 which are common themes in e-cigarette marketing and promotion. 8–10 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kalkhoran

Glantz

2016

The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

Self Cite

790

564

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Smokers increasingly use e-cigarettes for many reasons, including attempts to quit combustible cigarettes and to use nicotine where smoking is prohibited. We aimed to assess the association between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking cessation among adult cigarette smokers, irrespective of their motivation for using e-cigarettes. Methods PubMed and Web of Science were searched between April 27, 2015, and June 17, 2015. Data extracted included study location, design, population, definition and prevalence of e-cigarette use, comparison group (if applicable), cigarette consumption, level of nicotine dependence, other confounders, definition of quitting smoking, and odds of quitting smoking. The primary endpoint was cigarette smoking cessation. Odds of smoking cessation among smokers using e-cigarettes compared with smokers not using e-cigarettes were assessed using a random effects meta-analysis. A modification of the ACROBAT-NRSI tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were used to assess bias. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42015020382). Findings 38 studies (of 577 studies identified) were included in the systematic review; all 20 studies with control groups (15 cohort studies, three cross-sectional studies, and two clinical trials) were included in random effects meta-analysis and sensitivity analyses. Odds of quitting cigarettes were 28% lower in those who used e-cigarettes compared with those who did not use e-cigarettes (odds ratio [OR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57–0·91). Association of e-cigarette use with quitting did not significantly differ among studies of all smokers using e-cigarettes (irrespective of interest in quitting cigarettes) compared with studies of only smokers interested in cigarette cessation (OR 0·63, 95% CI 0·45–0·86 vs 0·86, 0·60–1·23; p=0·94). Other study characteristics (design, population, comparison group, control variables, time of exposure assessment, biochemical verification of abstinence, and definition of e-cigarette use) were also not associated with the overall effect size (p≥0·77 in all cases). Interpretation As currently being used, e-cigarettes are associated with significantly less quitting among smokers.

show abstract

“…It also found that the most frequent claims were health-related benefits (89%), followed by the claims of no SHS exposure (78%) and utility for smoking cessation (67%)[17]. Therefore, these advertising campaigns that claimed that e-cigarettes did more good than harm have inevitably caused to their high prevalence of use among the public, especially current smokers who may be more sensitive to tobacco advertising than other populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

E-Cigarette Awareness, Use, and Harm Perception among Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Guo

Liu

et al. 2016

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to systematically review the published literature on the awareness, previous and current use, and harm perceptions of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) among adults.MethodsA search of the most current literature using the PubMed and Scopus database to identify articles published since 2003 yielded a total of 28 relevant articles.ResultsThe pooled prevalence of awareness, previous use, current use of e-cigarettes and perceived healthier of e-cigarettes than regular cigarettes (healthier perception) among adults were 61.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 51.5–70.8%), 16.8% (95% CI: 14.0–19.6%), 11.1% (95% CI: 9.2–13.1%), and 52.6% (95% CI: 42.5–62.6%), respectively, using a random effects model. The subgroup analysis showed that pooled estimates were highest in the group of current smokers of regular cigarettes, except that the highest pooled rate of current use was seen in the group of former smokers of regular cigarettes (the corresponding rates were 71.9% (95% CI: 57.5–86.3%), 27.2% (95% CI: 18.8–35.6%), 16.8% (95% CI: 7.2–26.3%), and 63.1% (95% CI: 52.1–74.1%)), and the lowest pooled rates were in the group of non-smokers, except for the rate of healthier perception in the users of e-cigarettes (and the corresponding rates were 46.8% (95% CI: 26.8–66.8%), 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1–5.6%), 1.2% (95% CI: 0.4–2.1%), and 37.9% (95% CI: -0.5–76.3%)). The cumulative meta-analysis found that awareness increased over time, while the prevalence of previous use, current use, and healthier perception first experienced an increase followed by a decrease and remained stable thereafter.ConclusionsE-cigarette awareness has been increasing, and e-cigarette use and perceived health risks are nearly invariable between 2009 and 2014. Given the substantial heterogeneity in the prevalence rate estimates, there is a need for more accurate and comparable prevalence estimates for e-cigarettes across the world.

show abstract

A content analysis of electronic cigarette manufacturer websites in China

Cited by 56 publications

References 30 publications

Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review

Overview of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems: A Systematic Review

E-cigarettes and smoking cessation in real-world and clinical settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

E-Cigarette Awareness, Use, and Harm Perception among Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About