TY - JOUR
T1 - A method for classifying user-reported electronic cigarette liquid flavors
AU - Yingst, Jessica M.
AU - Veldheer, Susan
AU - Hammett, Erin
AU - Hrabovsky, Shari
AU - Foulds, Jonathan
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by an internal grant from Penn State Social Science Research Institute & Cancer Institute. JF, SV, JMY, SH, EH are primarily funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health and the Center for Tobacco Products of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (under Award Numbers P50-DA-036107-01, P50-DA-036105). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the Food and Drug Administration.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.
PY - 2017/11/1
Y1 - 2017/11/1
N2 - Background: Along with the growth in popularity of electronic cigarette devices (e-cigs), the variety of e-cig liquids (e-liquid) available to users has also grown. Although some studies have published data about the use of flavored e-liquid, there is no standardized way to group flavors, making it difficult to interpret the data and replicate results across studies. The current study describes a method to classify user-reported e-liquid flavors and presents the resulting proportion of users in each flavor group in a large online survey of e-cig users. Methods: Three thousand seven hundred sixteen participants completed an online survey about their e-cig use and responded to the following open-ended question regarding their use of e-liquid, "What is your favorite flavor and what brand of flavored liquid do you prefer?" Researchers used a 3 step method to determine the flavor attributes present in the e-liquids reported using an online search engine. Once all flavor attributes were identified, researchers used the constant comparative method to group the flavor attributes and delineate how to classify flavors with mixed components (eg, cinnamon Red Hots as a candy not a spice). Results: The resulting classification scheme and proportions of e-liquids in each category were as follows: Tobacco (23.7%), Menthol/mint (14.8%), Fruit (20.3%), Dessert/sweets (20.7%), Alcohol (2.8%), Nuts/spices (2.0%), Candy (2.1%), Coffee/tea (4.3%), Beverage (3.1%), Unflavored (0.4%), and Don't Know/Other (5.8%). Conclusion: To better understand the use of flavored e-liquids, standardized methods to classify the flavors could facilitate data interpretation and comparison across studies. This study proposes a method for classifying the characterizing flavors in e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. Implications: Current studies on the use of flavored e-liquid have used unclear methods to collect and report information on the use of flavors. This study adds a proposed method for classifying the flavors in the e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. With a clear and explicit method for classifying self-reported flavors, future study results may be more easily compared.
AB - Background: Along with the growth in popularity of electronic cigarette devices (e-cigs), the variety of e-cig liquids (e-liquid) available to users has also grown. Although some studies have published data about the use of flavored e-liquid, there is no standardized way to group flavors, making it difficult to interpret the data and replicate results across studies. The current study describes a method to classify user-reported e-liquid flavors and presents the resulting proportion of users in each flavor group in a large online survey of e-cig users. Methods: Three thousand seven hundred sixteen participants completed an online survey about their e-cig use and responded to the following open-ended question regarding their use of e-liquid, "What is your favorite flavor and what brand of flavored liquid do you prefer?" Researchers used a 3 step method to determine the flavor attributes present in the e-liquids reported using an online search engine. Once all flavor attributes were identified, researchers used the constant comparative method to group the flavor attributes and delineate how to classify flavors with mixed components (eg, cinnamon Red Hots as a candy not a spice). Results: The resulting classification scheme and proportions of e-liquids in each category were as follows: Tobacco (23.7%), Menthol/mint (14.8%), Fruit (20.3%), Dessert/sweets (20.7%), Alcohol (2.8%), Nuts/spices (2.0%), Candy (2.1%), Coffee/tea (4.3%), Beverage (3.1%), Unflavored (0.4%), and Don't Know/Other (5.8%). Conclusion: To better understand the use of flavored e-liquids, standardized methods to classify the flavors could facilitate data interpretation and comparison across studies. This study proposes a method for classifying the characterizing flavors in e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. Implications: Current studies on the use of flavored e-liquid have used unclear methods to collect and report information on the use of flavors. This study adds a proposed method for classifying the flavors in the e-liquids used most commonly by experienced e-cig users. With a clear and explicit method for classifying self-reported flavors, future study results may be more easily compared.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032789377&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032789377&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ntr/ntw383
DO - 10.1093/ntr/ntw383
M3 - Article
C2 - 28064201
AN - SCOPUS:85032789377
VL - 19
SP - 1381
EP - 1385
JO - Nicotine and Tobacco Research
JF - Nicotine and Tobacco Research
SN - 1462-2203
IS - 11
M1 - ntw383
ER -