RESEARCH PAPER
An exploratory analysis of adult daily smokers’ experiences using e-cigarettes in smoke-free places
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Preventive Medicine, Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
2
Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, United States
3
Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, United States
4
School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Sabrina L. Smiley   

Department of Preventive Medicine, Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 2001 North Soto Street, 90032-3628, Los Angeles, CA, United States
Publish date: 2018-11-19
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(November):54
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Evidence indicates that one reason cigarette smokers value e-cigarettes is the ability to use them in places where smoking is not permitted. We sought to: 1) explore adult daily smokers’ experiences using e-cigarettes in the context of smoke-free places; and 2) describe smokers’ perceptions of bystanders’ reactions.

Methods:
Twenty adult daily smokers in Washington, DC initiated e-cigarettes for three weeks and completed in semi-structured interviews at the end of each week. All interviews (n=60) were digitally-recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported into NVivo 10.0, and analyzed using thematic analysis methodology.

Results:
The sample had a mean age of 37.9 years and 18 participants reported having smoked their first cigarette by age 18. Common themes included descriptions of: 1) uncertainty about whether smoke-free policies included e-cigarettes; 2) using e-cigarettes in smoke-free places (e.g. restaurants, workplace, public transit-bus and rail); 3) approaches to e-cigarette use in smoke-free places as part of a complex decision-making process, ranging from testing and establishing the social and spatial boundaries of e-cigarette use, to confining e-cigarette use to inside their home; and 4) favorable, unfavorable, and impartial reactions from bystanders facilitated or impeded e-cigarette use, indicating social approval/social disapproval.

Conclusions:
Results suggest a continuum of factors, including smoke-free policies and reactions from bystanders may facilitate or impede e-cigarette use among smokers in environments where a smoke-free imperative is well-established. As e-cigarette use evolves, study findings indicate the importance of the social environment and how it could affect those switching from cigarettes to e-cigarettes.

 
REFERENCES (25)
1.
King BA, Patel R, Nguyen KH, Dube SR. Trends in awareness and use of electronic cigarettes among US adults, 2010-2013. Nicotine Tob Research. 2014;17(2):219-227. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu191
 
2.
Syamlal G, King BA, Mazurek JM. Tobacco use among working adults- United States, 2014-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(42):1130-1135. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6642a2
 
3.
Grana RA, Ling PM. “Smoking revolution”: a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(4):395-403. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2013.12.010
 
4.
Pearson JL, Richardson A, Niaura RS, Vallone DM, Abrams DB. e-Cigarette awareness, use, and harm perceptions in US adults. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):1758-1766. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300526
 
5.
Shi Y, Cummins SE, Zhu S-H. Use of electronic cigarettes in smoke-free environments. Tob Control. 2017;26(e1):e19-e22. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053118
 
6.
Zhu S-H, Gamst A, Lee M, Cummins S, Yin L, Zoref L. The use and perception of electronic cigarettes and snus among the US population. PloS One. 2013;8(10):e79332. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079332
 
7.
Luo C, Zheng X, Zeng DD, Leischow S. Portrayal of electronic cigarettes on YouTube. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):1028. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1028
 
8.
Pokhrel P, Herzog TA, Muranaka N, Regmi S, Fagan P. Contexts of cigarette and e-cigarette use among dual users: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:859. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2198-z
 
9.
Trumbo CW, Harper R. Use and Perception of Electronic Cigarettes Among College Students. J of ACH. 2013;61(3):149-155. doi:10.1080/07448481.2013.776052
 
10.
Wackowski OA, Delnevo CD. Smokers’ attitudes and support for e-cigarette policies and regulation in the USA. Tob Control. 2015;24(6):543-546. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051953
 
11.
Majeed BA, Dube SR, Sterling K, Whitney C, Eriksen MP. Opinions about electronic cigarette use in smoke-free areas among U.S. adults, 2012. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015(6);17:675-681. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu235
 
12.
Tan ASL, Bigman CA, Sanders-Jackson A. Sociodemographic correlates of self-reported exposure to e-cigarette communications and its association with public support for smoke free and vape-free policies: results from a national survey of US adults. Tob Control. 2015;24(6):574-581. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051685
 
13.
Department of Health Functions Clarification Act of 2001. In: Health Do. DC; 2001: 14-28.
 
14.
Public Health Law Center, Mitchell Hamline School of Law. E-cig Regulations - Washington DC. http://www.publichealthlawcent.... Updated, 2017. Accessed June 5, 2017.
 
15.
Pearson JL, Smiley SL, Rubin LF, et al. The Moment Study: protocol for a mixed method observational cohort study of the Alternative Nicotine Delivery Systems (ANDS) initiation process among adult cigarette smokers. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e011717. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011717
 
16.
Kvale S. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996.
 
17.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
 
18.
Reference for Windows: NVivo qualitative data analysis software [computer program]. Version 10. QSR International Pty Ltd.; 2012.
 
19.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
 
20.
Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
 
21.
Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL. Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):522-537. doi:10.1177/104973201129119299
 
22.
Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA. E-cigarettes. Circulation. 2014;129(19):1972-1986. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667
 
23.
Smiley SL, DeAtley T, Rubin LF, et al. Early Subjective Sensory Experiences with “cigalike” E-cigarettes Among African American Menthol Smokers: A Qualitative Study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2017;20(9):1069-1075. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx102
 
24.
Merrick E. An exploration of quality in qualitative research: Are "reliability" and "validity" relevant? In: Kopala M, Suzuki LA, eds. Using qualitative methods in psychology. SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1999: 25-36. doi:10.41359781452225487.n3
 
25.
Zhu SH, Sun JY, Bonnevie E, et al. Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation. Tob Control. 2014; 23(Suppl 3):iii3-iii9. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670
 
eISSN:1617-9625