An Observational Study of Vaping Knowledge and Perceptions in a Sample of U.S. Adults

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Abstract

Vaping is the use of e-cigarettes that contain inhalants such as nicotine, tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabidiol. Vaping is associated with e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI) and is a recognized public health crisis. Despite rising numbers of hospitalizations due to EVALI, public knowledge and perceptions of the dangers of vaping require further investigation.

This exploratory study assessed knowledge and perceptions of vaping in U.S. adults.

This study was approved by an ethical board, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. A cohort of U.S. adults was recruited by shared links on social media. Participants completed an anonymous online survey that contained vaping knowledge and perceptions items. An a priori power analysis was conducted at 95% power and alpha = 0.05. Statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

A sample of 413 (N = 413) U.S. adults participated in the survey. The majority of participants (79.18%) were females, and 65.62% were between 18 and 24 years of age. Over half (62.71%) of participants were never asked about vaping use by a clinician at any visit, and 56.51% agreed that vaping can reduce stress. Of all participants, 70.91% agreed that drinking alcohol makes someone more inclined to vape. Significant positive Spearman’s rho correlations were found between vaping and the use of cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, hallucinogens, and inhalants (p < 0.05).

We found a significant correlation between vaping and drug use. We also found that if the dangers of vaping are discussed by their health care providers, participants are more inclined to quit vaping. Unfortunately, many physicians report that they avoid discussing vaping with their patients due to lack of vaping knowledge. Our results illuminate the communication gap between patients and physicians. All clinicians need to counsel patients on the dangers of vaping, which might help prevent EVALI and related conditions.

Keywords: addiction, electronic cigarettes, lung injury, pulmonary, vaping, e-cigarette and vaping product use associated lung injury (evali)

Introduction

Vaping is inhaling smoke from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) that may contain nicotine, tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabidiol [1]. Vaping is now recognized as a global public health crisis [2]. Vaping is associated with harmful conditions that include e-cigarette or vaping product use associated lung injury (EVALI) [1,3]. Despite the rising numbers of hospitalizations due to EVALI [1], public knowledge and perceptions of the dangers of vaping are still not clear as the incidence of vaping continues to rise in children and young adults [4].

Vape products come in a variety of styles, and there are over 7,000 available flavors in the market [9-11]. A cross-sectional survey in a large cohort (N = 728) was carried out to examine the relationship between product characteristics and e-cigarette appeal [12]. Of participants that exclusively vaped, 68.9% reported that the option of different flavors was the most attractive characteristic of using vapes that influenced their decision to begin vaping [12]. These results suggest that people who have never vaped or smoked cigarettes may be vulnerable to e-cigarette flavor marketing strategies. Allen et al. [9] analyzed the contents of 51 types of flavored e-cigarettes and found that diacetyl was detected above the laboratory limit of detection in 39 of 51 flavors (up to 239 µg/e-cigarette), 2,3-pentanedione was detected in 23 of 51 flavors (up to 64 µg/e-cigarette), and acetoin was detected in 46 of 51 flavors (up to 529 µg/e-cigarette). These data have driven lawmakers in some countries to ban flavored e-cigarettes or restrict them from being sold to adolescents. Rates of e-cigarette use among high school students in the United States have strikingly increased from 1.5% in 2011 to 20.8% in 2018 [13], and these data have been corroborated in more recent studies [4]. In a qualitative study of young adults (N = 49), researchers [14] conducted focus groups and four main themes emerged: positive reinforcement, social benefits, negative effect reduction, and negative consequences. They found that many young adults were unsure of the negative consequences of vaping [14].

Vaping research is in its infancy, and there exist large gaps in the literature related to knowledge and perceptions of vaping among people of all ages. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study is to assess public knowledge and perceptions of vaping by surveying a cohort of U.S. adults. The results can help clinicians provide effective vaping cessation strategies for their patients and drive evidence-based public health interventions. Our three hypotheses are as follows:

1. There exists an association between knowledge of the chemicals found in vape pods and vape usage.

2. There exists a relationship between vaping and concomitant drug use.

3. There exists an inverse association between knowledge of the dangers of vaping and vape usage.

Materials and methods

The study protocol was fully approved by the Wagner College, Staten Island, NY, USA. Informed consent was obtained by all participants prior to their participation in the study. The design was an exploratory, observational study with a sample size of 413 (N = 413) participants. An a priori power analysis using G-power version 3.1.9.6 revealed that the minimum sample size need to achieve significance was 317 participants at 95% power, effect size of 0.25, at an alpha level of 0.05 [15, 16]. Because we did not find a published survey instrument that specifically aligned with the purpose of our study, we developed our own. The complexity of measuring perceptions related to vaping has been discussed in the literature [17]. Researchers have suggested that survey instruments be developed as e-cigarette products evolve [17]. They summarized 371 e-cigarette perception items from seven research groups, and we adapted some of our items from their summary [17]. The survey instrument was first piloted on 235 (N = 235) participants so that the items and responses could be analyzed for inconsistencies and revised, if necessary. Inconsistencies included the use of ambiguous terms or the lack of operational definitions for others. The wording of any items that appeared vague were was changed by consensus agreement among the authors. None of the data from these piloted participants were included in the final total sample. The final survey instrument included demographic items, as well as, vaping knowledge and perception items (see Appendix). A Likert scale was used for the knowledge and perception items. These items were paired (both positively and negatively worded items) but spaced from each other on the survey instrument. The purpose of these items was to evaluate acquiescence bias, which we did not find. The variables measured by the survey instrument are shown in Table 1 . The inclusion criteria were participants 18 years or older, participants who vape or do not vape, and completed surveys. The exclusion criteria were participants less than 18 years of age and incomplete surveys. All statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Table 1

We distributed our electronic survey on a variety of social media websites using SurveyMonkey Ⓡ . These websites included Facebook as a primary source due to its popularity and number of users. Others included Reddit, YouTube, and Instagram.

Results

A total sample of 413 (N = 413) U.S. adults participated. The internal consistency of our survey instrument was found to be moderately reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.537). The gender and educational level of the sample are shown in Table 2 . Most participants were females (79.18%) between the ages of 18 to 24 years (65.62%) and white/Caucasian (79.42%). Figures 1 and 2 depict these data. Table 3 includes the medical and psychiatric diagnoses of the sample.

Table 2

a Operational definition of gender variant/nonconforming: exhibiting behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits that do not correspond with the traits typically associated with one's sex; having a gender expression that does not conform to gender norms.

GED, general educational development

Data are shown as percentages (numbers).

Table 3

Less than half the sample (46.49%) had never vaped, and the rest of the participants reported different frequencies of vaping (Figure 3 ). Data for current vape use among all participants can be found in Figure 4 . Data for frequency of drug use among all participants can be found in Table 4 . Figure 5 includes data related to whether or not a participant has ever been asked about vaping usage by a health care provider. Data for vaping perceptions and knowledge among all participants can be found in Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

Data are shown as percentages.

Data are shown as percentages.

Table 4

All data reported as n (%).

Pie chart showing nominal data regarding whether participants were ever asked about vaping usage by a health care provider

Data are shown as percentages.

Table 5

Table 6

In order to explore relationships between variables, Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient tests were used for all categorical data at an alpha level of 0.05. Table 7 displays all the significant (p < 0.05) Spearman’s rho correlations found in this study.

Table 7

a p-Value less than 0.05 is significant.

b Vaping perception.

c Vaping knowledge.

Discussion

This exploratory study helped fill the gap in the literature related to knowledge and perceptions of vaping among young U.S. adults. More significant correlations with perception statements were found than with knowledge statements. This suggests that perceptions of vaping risk play a critical role in the decision to engage in vaping. This finding lends support to our first hypothesis that an association exists between knowledge of the chemicals found in vape pods and vaping. Whether or not such a perception changes as a person ages is unknown. Over 80% of our sample fell between 10 and 34 years of age (Figure 2 ). Some reasons that incline adults to vape include (1) belief that vaping reduces stress, (2) belief that drinking alcohol makes people more inclined to vape, (3) belief that the ingredients in a vape pod are safe to consume, and (4) belief that smoking cigarettes is more dangerous than vaping. The lack of a significant finding between educational level and knowledge and perceptions of the dangers of vaping suggests that all adults need sound education regarding the dangers of vaping, irrespective of their educational backgrounds. The incidence of EVALI has increased and patients, with this acute condition acutely most often present with severe pulmonary consolidation with respiratory failure [1]. Based on our participants’ responses, we found that if the dangers of vaping were discussed with them by their health care providers, they would be more inclined to quit vaping. This underscores how clinicians can influence vaping behavior changes in patients. Such changes begin with candid conversations about the dangers of vaping between clinicians and patients. Unfortunately, this may be easier said than done. Hurst and Conway [18] conducted a qualitative study on physician attitudes about discussing vaping with patients and documenting vaping usage in the electronic medical record. Many physicians believe that they lack medical knowledge needed to discuss vaping with patients and they rarely screen patients for vaping [18]. In fact, one-third of the physicians in their sample did not hold strong objections to vaping [18]. These data are sobering because they provide reasons why many clinicians avoid vaping conversations with patients.

Data are shown as percentages.

We found significant positive correlations between vaping and concomitant drug use that support our second hypothesis. There was a moderately strong positive correlation (0.572) between vaping and cannabis use (p = 0.000). Weak positive correlations were found between vaping and cocaine use (0.245; p = 0.000), vaping and ecstasy use (0.143; p = 0.004), and vaping and inhalants (0.140; p = 0.004). Our results align with other studies that have found an association between e-cigarettes and marijuana use in young adults [19]. Researchers found that youth who had used an e-cigarette were 3.5 times more likely to use marijuana compared to youth who had not used an e-cigarette [19]. In a Dutch cross-sectional survey, it was found that access to a variety of flavors is one of the most attractive characteristics prompting initial vape use [12]. In our study, flavor was not found to be a significant factor influencing vape use. This suggests that recent legislation banning the sale of flavored cartridges may not be as effective as intended in deterring vaping [20].

In our cohort, we found that participants who lack knowledge of the content and dangers of vaping are not only more likely to engage in vaping, but they also vape more frequently. This finding supports our third hypothesis that an inverse association exists between knowledge of the dangers of vaping and vape usage. We found a weak positive correlation between vape use and the belief that vaping reduces stress (0.389, p = 0.000). Our data support those of others [14] who also reported that e-cigarette users believe that vaping reduces stress.

This study provides a unique snapshot of the vaping landscape in a cohort of young U.S. adults. Although unknown to us at the time, the data reported in this study were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic [21]. A future study during a non-pandemic time could be conducted and the data compared to ours. We were forced to close the study prematurely as New York City began to shut down. However, our sample size (N = 413) exceeded the minimum identified by our a priori power analysis. A larger sample size could have resulted in more robust results. We do believe that our sample is representative of young, computer-literate U.S. adults. The fact that we were not permitted by the ethical review board to query respondents on their places of residence prevented us from generalizing our results to specific areas both within and outside the United States. Our design was not immune to response bias inherent in survey instruments. Furthermore, we were unable to answer any queries related to unfamiliar terminology on our survey because it was electronically distributed. However, as a result of piloting our survey, we did include operational definitions in simple language to help participants. We believe the internal validity of our study is robust. The homogeneity of our sample may weaken the external validity because the ethics board did not permit us to ask for the geographic locations of participants or their IP addresses. Despite these limitations, our data can provide better direction for future studies on vaping knowledge and perceptions in adults.

Conclusions

Future studies can be designed to evaluate the efficacy of a vaping cessation “conversation protocol” for clinicians to help them engage in conversations about vaping with patients. Analyzing factors that are most predictive of vaping cessation success would be useful in providing much needed patient education. Future studies can also investigate the associations between vaping and drug use to see which drugs most influence a person’s decision to vape. Whether there exists a synergistic mechanism between the chemicals in vaping products and other drugs that make them more addictive in combination is currently unknown.

Undergraduate medical education should include comprehensive information on the pathophysiology and psychosocial factors of vaping. Such a topic could be included within the neurology, psychiatry, and behavior courses. Such a strategy would expose medical students to the fundamentals of vaping addiction. We also recommend screening for e-cigarettes use during every clinical encounter.

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous participants who responded to our survey. A special thanks to Michael J. Flory, PhD, who provided us with invaluable guidance.

Appendices

Complete survey instrument (demographic items, vaping knowledge items, and vaping perception items) used in the study protocol.

● To which gender do you most closely identify with?

○ Gender variant/nonconforming a

○ Prefer not to answer

a Operational definition of gender variant/nonconforming: exhibiting behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits that do not correspond with the traits typically associated with one's sex; having a gender expression that does not conform to gender norms.

● What is your age range?

○ 75 years or older

● Please specify your ethnicity.

● What is your highest degree or level of education that you have completed?

○ Some high school, no diploma

○ High school graduate, diploma or equivalent (example: GED [General Education Diploma])

○ Some college credits, no degree

○ Academic doctorate degree (PhD, MD, DO, etc.)

● Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

○ Employed for wages

○ Out of work and looking for work

○ Out of work but not currently looking for work

● Your yearly income falls within which range?

○ Less than $25,000

○ More than $200,000

○ Prefer not to say

● Are you legally married?

○ Prefer not to say

● How many children do you have?

○ Prefer not to say

● Which languages do you speak fluently? (Check all that apply.)

○ Prefer not to say

● Which of the following statements do you most closely agree with? (Vaping frequency.)

○ I do not know what vaping is.

○ I have never vaped.

○ I have tried vaping, vaped less than 1-5 times in my life, and stopped.

○ I have tried vaping, vaped more than 5 times in my life, and stopped.

○ I vape 1-5 times a week.

○ I vape nearly every day.

● Which of the following statements do you most closely agree with? (Current vape use.)

○ Less than monthly (less than once a month per 12 months)

○ Monthly (once a month per 12 months)

○ Weekly (1-6 days per week)

○ Daily (7 days per week)

● Which of the following statements do you most closely agree with? Click all that apply.

○ I have used cannabis (marijuana)

○ I have used cocaine

○ I have used ecstasy (MDMA)

○ I have used hallucinogens

○ I have used heroin

○ I have used inhalants (ex. Poppers, “Huffing”)

○ I have used ketamine

○ I have used methamphetamines

○ I have never tried using the substances listed above before

○ I have used other substances

● Have you ever been diagnosed with any of the following medical illnesses?

○ Reactive airway disease

○ Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

○ None of the above

● Have you ever been diagnosed with any of the following?

○ Generalized anxiety or panic disorder

○ Major depressive disorder or seasonal depressive disorder

○ Bipolar 1 or Bipolar 2 disorder

○ Substance use disorder

○ Schizophrenia or schizophreniform or schizoaffective disorder

○ Anorexia nervosa or bulimia

○ Never been diagnosed with a psychiatric medical illness/condition

● Have you ever been questioned by a health care provider about vaping?

Paired knowledge statements:

I can list all the ingredients in a vape pod / I cannot list all the ingredients in a vape pod

The ingredients in a vape pod are safe to consume / The ingredients in a vape pod are not safe to consume

Vaping can cause lung damage / Vaping cannot cause lung damage

Vaping is addictive / Vaping is not addictive

Vaping is less harmful than smoking cigarettes / Vaping is more harmful than smoking cigarettes

Vaping will negatively affect a person's health over time / Vaping will not negatively affect a person's health over time

Paired perception statements:

The news has affected my impression of vaping / The news has not affected my impression of vaping

Vaping is a health concern / Vaping is not a health concern

Drinking alcohol makes a person more inclined to vape / Drinking alcohol does not make a person more inclined to vape

Vaping makes one more socially acceptable to their friends / Vaping does not make one more socially acceptable to their friends

Vaping can reduce stress / Vaping does not reduce stress

If my doctor or other health care provider advised me to stop vaping, I would quit / If my doctor or other healthcare provider advised me to stop vaping, I would not quit

During any visit to a health care provider in the last 12 months were you questioned about vaping? / During any visit to a healthcare provider in the last 12 months were you NOT questioned about vaping?

If tobacco was the only flavor offered, people would not vape / People would vape if tobacco was the only flavor offered

I have noticed that vaping increases difficulty breathing and coughing / I have noticed that vaping decreases difficulty breathing and coughing

Notes

The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Human Ethics

Consent was obtained by all participants in this study. Human Experimentation Review Board (Wagner College) issued approval S20-2. The study protocol was fully approved by the Wagner College (Staten Island, NY) Human Experimentation Review Board in January of 2020.

Animal Ethics

Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue.

References

1. E-cigarette or vaping product use-associated lung injury. Ind PW. Br J Hosp Med. 2020; 81 :1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. World vaping update. Striley CW, Nutley SK. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2020; 33 :360–368. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Vitamin E acetate in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid associated with EVALI. Blount BC, Karwowski MP, Shields PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382 :697–705. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. A public health crisis: electronic cigarettes, vape, and JUUL. WaWalley SC, Wilson KM, Winickoff JP, Groner J. A. Pediatrics. 2019; 143 :0. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Exposure to electronic cigarettes impairs pulmonary anti-bacterial and anti-viral defenses in a mouse model. Sussan TE, Gajghate S, Thimmulappa RK, et al. PLoS One. 2015; 10 :116861. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Electronic-cigarette smoke induces lung adenocarcinoma and bladder urothelial hyperplasia in mice. Tang MS, Wu XR, Lee HW, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019; 116 :21727–21731. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Pulmonary illness related to e-cigarette use in Illinois and Wisconsin - final report. Layden JE, Ghinai I, Pray I, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382 :903–916. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. E-cigarette use and respiratory disorder in an adult sample. Wills TA, Pagano I, Williams RJ, Tam EK. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019; 194 :363–370. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Flavoring chemicals in e-cigarettes: diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione, and acetoin in a sample of 51 products, including fruit-, candy-, and cocktail-flavored e-cigarettes. Allen JG, Flanigan SS, LeBlanc M, Vallarino J, MacNaughton P, Stewart JH, Christiani DC. Environ Health Perspect. 2016; 124 :733–739. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. An e-liquid flavor wheel: a shared vocabulary based on systematically reviewing e-liquid flavor classifications in literature. Krusemann EJZ, Boesveldt S, de Graaf K, Talhout R. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019; 21 :1310–1319. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Comprehensive overview of common e-liquid ingredients and how they can be used to predict an e-liquid's flavour category [Online ahead of print] Krusemann EJZ, Havermans A, Pennings JLA, de Graaf K, Boesveldt S, Talhout R. Tob Control. 2020 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. E-liquid flavor preferences and individual factors related to vaping: a survey among Dutch never-users, smokers, dual users, and exclusive vapers. Romijnders KA, Krusemann EJ, Boesveldt S, Graaf K, Vries H, Talhout R. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16 :4661. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. The rise of e-cigarettes, pod mod devices, and JUUL among youth: factors influencing use, health implications, and downstream effects. Fadus MC, Smith TT, Squeglia LM. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019; 201 :85–93. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Vaping expectancies: a qualitative study among young adult nonusers, smokers, vapers, and dual users. Harrell PT, Brandon TH, KJ England, Barnett TE, Brockenberry LO, Simmons VN, Quinn GP. Subst Abuse. 2019; 13 :1–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Behavior Research Methods. 2009; 41 :1149–1160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39 :175–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Measuring perceptions related to e-cigarettes: important principles and next steps to enhance study validity. Gibson LA, Creamer MR, Breland AB, et al. Addict Behav. 2018; 79 :219–225. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Exploring physician attitudes regarding electronic documentation of e-cigarette use: a qualitative study. Hurst S, Conway M. Tob Use Insights. 2018; 11 :1179173. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Association between electronic cigarette use and marijuana use among adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Chadi N, Schroeder R, Jensen JW, Levy S. JAMA Pediatr. 2019; 173 :0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Regulations and policies regarding e-cigarettes. Barraza LF, Weidenaar KE, Cook LT, Logue AR, Halpern MT. Cancer. 2017; 123 :3007–3014. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Preliminary estimate of excess mortality during the COVID-19 outbreak — New York City, March 11-May 2, 2020. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020; 69 :603–605. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]