IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i7p2201-d336973.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • 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)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Briganti & Olivia A. Wackowski & Cristine D. Delnevo & Leanne Brown & Shirin E. Hastings & Binu Singh & Michael B. Steinberg, 2020. "Content Analysis of Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Publications in Core Clinical Journals from 2012 to 2018," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-10, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2201-:d:336973
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2201/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/7/2201/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Briganti & Cristine D. Delnevo & Leanne Brown & Shirin E. Hastings & Michael B. Steinberg, 2019. "Bibliometric Analysis of Electronic Cigarette Publications: 2003–2018," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-10, January.
    2. Ce Shang & Scott R. Weaver & Nahleen Zahra & Jidong Huang & Kai-Wen Cheng & Frank J. Chaloupka, 2018. "The Association between Potential Exposure to Magazine Ads with Voluntary Health Warnings and the Perceived Harmfulness of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-12, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jie Li & Floris Goerlandt & Kai Way Li, 2019. "Slip and Fall Incidents at Work: A Visual Analytics Analysis of the Research Domain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-18, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:7:p:2201-:d:336973. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.