Next Article in Journal
Validation of a Short Questionnaire to Assess Healthcare Professionals’ Perceptions of Asynchronous Telemedicine Services: The Catalan Version of the Health Optimum Telemedicine Acceptance Questionnaire
Previous Article in Journal
Feasibility of Adjusting the S2O32−/NO3 Ratio to Adapt to Dynamic Influents in Coupled Anammox and Denitrification Systems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Metal Concentration Assessment in the Urine of Cigarette Smokers Who Switched to Electronic Cigarettes: A Pilot Study
Open AccessArticle

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

1
Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
2
Department of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(7), 2201; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072201
Received: 19 February 2020 / Revised: 11 March 2020 / Accepted: 21 March 2020 / Published: 25 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Electronic Cigarettes: Good and Bad Impacts)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: electronic cigarette; e-cigarette; electronic nicotine delivery system; publications; physician; medical journal; clinical journal electronic cigarette; e-cigarette; electronic nicotine delivery system; publications; physician; medical journal; clinical journal
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Briganti, M.; Wackowski, O.A.; Delnevo, C.D.; Brown, L.; Hastings, S.E.; Singh, B.; Steinberg, M.B. Content Analysis of Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Publications in Core Clinical Journals from 2012 to 2018. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2201.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop