Consumers' Preferences for Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Product Features: A Structured Content Analysis

Overview

Journal Int J Environ Res Public Health

Publisher MDPI

Specialties Environmental Health
Public Health

Date 2017 Jun 8

PMID 28590444

Citations 17

Authors

Christine E Kistler

Trisha M Crutchfield

Erin L Sutfin

Leah M Ranney

Micah L Berman

Gary A Zarkin

Adam O Goldstein

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

To inform potential governmental regulations, we aimed to develop a list of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) product features important to U.S. consumers by age and gender. We employed qualitative data methods. Participants were eligible if they had used an ENDS at least once. Groups were selected by age and gender (young adult group aged 18-25, = 11; middle-age group aged 26-64, = 9; and women's group aged 26-64, = 9). We conducted five individual older adult interviews (aged 68-80). Participants discussed important ENDS features. We conducted a structured content analysis of the group and interview responses. Of 34 participants, 68% were white and 56% were female. Participants mentioned 12 important ENDS features, including: (1) user experience; (2) social acceptability; (3) cost; (4) health risks/benefits; (5) ease of use; (6) flavors; (7) smoking cessation aid; (8) nicotine content; (9) modifiability; (10) ENDS regulation; (11) bridge between tobacco cigarettes; (12) collectability. The most frequently mentioned ENDS feature was modifiability for young adults, user experience for middle-age and older adults, and flavor for the women's group. This study identified multiple features important to ENDS consumers. Groups differed in how they viewed various features by age and gender. These results can inform ongoing regulatory efforts.

Citing Articles

General and Device-Specific Reasons for ENDS Use: A Qualitative Study with Adult ENDS Users.

Alqahtani M, Massey Z, Fairman R, Churchill V, Ashley D, Popova L Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(11).

PMID: 35682417 PMC: 9180821. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19116822.

Preferences for different features of ENDS products by tobacco product use: a latent class analysis.

Enyioha C, Boynton M, Ranney L, Byron M, Goldstein A, Kistler C Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2022; 17(1):18.

PMID: 35260177 PMC: 8906001. DOI: 10.1186/s13011-022-00448-4.

Exposure to fruit-flavoring during adolescence increases nicotine consumption and promotes dose escalation.

Patten T, Dreier A, Herman R, Kimball B, De Biasi M Neuropharmacology. 2021; 195:108672.

PMID: 34153314 PMC: 8572580. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108672.

Sensory experiences and cues among E-cigarette users.

DiPiazza J, Caponnetto P, Askin G, Christos P, Maglia M, Gautam R Harm Reduct J. 2020; 17(1):75.

PMID: 33059666 PMC: 7559939. DOI: 10.1186/s12954-020-00420-0.

History repeats itself: Role of characterizing flavors on nicotine use and abuse.

Patten T, De Biasi M Neuropharmacology. 2020; 177:108162.

PMID: 32497589 PMC: 7814940. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2020.108162.

References

Marynak K, Holmes C, King B, Promoff G, Bunnell R, McAfee T . State laws prohibiting sales to minors and indoor use of electronic nicotine delivery systems--United States, November 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014; 63(49):1145-50. PMC: 4584536. View

Barbeau A, Burda J, Siegel M . Perceived efficacy of e-cigarettes versus nicotine replacement therapy among successful e-cigarette users: a qualitative approach. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2013; 8:5. PMC: 3599549. DOI: 10.1186/1940-0640-8-5. View

Stevenson F, Britten N, Barry C, Barber N, Bradley C . Qualitative methods and prescribing research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2000; 25(5):317-24. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2000.00300.x. View

Pesko M, Kenkel D, Wang H, Hughes J . The effect of potential electronic nicotine delivery system regulations on nicotine product selection. Addiction. 2015; 111(4):734-44. PMC: 4801654. DOI: 10.1111/add.13257. View

Cooper M, Harrell M, Perry C . A Qualitative Approach to Understanding Real-World Electronic Cigarette Use: Implications for Measurement and Regulation. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016; 13:E07. PMC: 4714939. DOI: 10.5888/pcd13.150502. View

Etter J, Bullen C . Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy. Addiction. 2011; 106(11):2017-28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x. View

Ooms G, Bosdriesz J, Portrait F, Kunst A . Sociodemographic Differences in the Use of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems in the European Union. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 18(5):724-9. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv215. View

Yingst J, Veldheer S, Hrabovsky S, Nichols T, Wilson S, Foulds J . Factors Associated With Electronic Cigarette Users' Device Preferences and Transition From First Generation to Advanced Generation Devices. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 17(10):1242-6. PMC: 4592341. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv052. View

Paradise J . No sisyphean task: how the FDA can regulate electronic cigarettes. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2013; 13(2):326-74. View

10.

Wagoner K, Cornacchione J, Wiseman K, Teal R, Moracco K, Sutfin E . E-cigarettes, Hookah Pens and Vapes: Adolescent and Young Adult Perceptions of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. Nicotine Tob Res. 2016; 18(10):2006-12. PMC: 5016844. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntw095. View

11.

Moracco K, Morgan J, Mendel J, Teal R, Noar S, Ribisl K . "My First Thought was Croutons": Perceptions of Cigarettes and Cigarette Smoke Constituents Among Adult Smokers and Nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015; 18(7):1566-74. PMC: 4902881. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntv281. View

12.

Pineiro B, Correa J, Simmons V, Harrell P, Menzie N, Unrod M . Gender differences in use and expectancies of e-cigarettes: Online survey results. Addict Behav. 2015; 52:91-7. PMC: 4644488. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.09.006. View

13.

Richardson A, Ganz O, Stalgaitis C, Abrams D, Vallone D . Noncombustible tobacco product advertising: how companies are selling the new face of tobacco. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014; 16(5):606-14. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntt200. View

14.

Berg C . Preferred flavors and reasons for e-cigarette use and discontinued use among never, current, and former smokers. Int J Public Health. 2015; 61(2):225-36. PMC: 4808473. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-015-0764-x. View

15.

Hsieh H, Shannon S . Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15(9):1277-88. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687. View

16.

Farsalinos K, Romagna G, Tsiapras D, Kyrzopoulos S, Voudris V . Characteristics, perceived side effects and benefits of electronic cigarette use: a worldwide survey of more than 19,000 consumers. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2014; 11(4):4356-73. PMC: 4025024. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110404356. View

17.

Nash S, Liao L, Harris T, Freedman N . Cigarette Smoking and Mortality in Adults Aged 70 Years and Older: Results From the NIH-AARP Cohort. Am J Prev Med. 2016; 52(3):276-283. PMC: 5318256. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.09.036. View

18.

Coleman B, Johnson S, Tessman G, Tworek C, Alexander J, Dickinson D . "It's not smoke. It's not tar. It's not 4000 chemicals. Case closed": Exploring attitudes, beliefs, and perceived social norms of e-cigarette use among adult users. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015; 159:80-5. PMC: 4813813. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.11.028. View

19.

Agaku I, Omaduvie U, Filippidis F, Vardavas C . Cigarette design and marketing features are associated with increased smoking susceptibility and perception of reduced harm among smokers in 27 EU countries. Tob Control. 2014; 24(e4):e233-40. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051922. View

20.

Zhu S, Gamst A, Lee M, Cummins S, Yin L, Zoref L . The use and perception of electronic cigarettes and snus among the U.S. population. PLoS One. 2013; 8(10):e79332. PMC: 3824062. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079332. View