Content Analysis of Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Publications in Core Clinical Journals from 2012 to 2018

Michael Briganti, Olivia A. Wackowski, Cristine D. Delnevo, Leanne Brown, Shirin E. Hastings, Binu Singh and Michael B. Steinberg
Additional contact information
Michael Briganti: Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Olivia A. Wackowski: Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Cristine D. Delnevo: Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Leanne Brown: Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Shirin E. Hastings: Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Binu Singh: Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
Michael B. Steinberg: Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 7, 1-10

Abstract: There is no consensus if electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) should be used to reduce harm among the smoking population. Physicians, who represent a trusted source of health communication, are exposed to a range of often conflicting ENDS information and this information may be relayed to patients looking to quit smoking. Previous studies have examined ENDS content of various sources of media but there is a lack of knowledge about ENDS content in medical journals. We analyzed 421 ENDS publications printed between 2012 and 2018 from PubMed’s Core Clinical Journal list. Publications were analyzed based on publication type, journal type, study design, geographic focus, theme, terminology, outcomes, and positive/negative statements. The number of ENDS publications grew since 2012, and peaked in 2015. Across all years, negative statements about ENDS outnumbered positive statements, though this difference decreased over time. Over time, negative statements about “toxins and carcinogens” were made less frequently, while negative statements about “gateway effects” and “youth appeal” became more prevalent. UK journals had fewer negative statements relative to US journals. Only 12.6% of publications included guidance for healthcare professionals about ENDS. As published ENDS topics change over time, physicians’ communications with patients may be impacted.

Keywords: electronic cigarette; e-cigarette; electronic nicotine delivery system; publications; physician; medical journal; clinical journal (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2201/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2201/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2201-:d:336973

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().