↓ Skip to main content

Initial ratings of different types of e-cigarettes and relationships between product appeal and nicotine delivery

Overview of attention for article published in Psychopharmacology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Initial ratings of different types of e-cigarettes and relationships between product appeal and nicotine delivery
Published in
Psychopharmacology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00213-017-4826-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Hajek, Dunja Przulj, Anna Phillips-Waller, Rebecca Anderson, Hayden McRobbie

Abstract

Little is known about features of e-cigarettes (EC) that facilitate or hinder the switch from smoking to vaping. We tested eight brands of EC to determine how nicotine delivery and other product characteristics influence user's initial reactions. Fifteen vapers tested each product after overnight abstinence from both smoking and vaping. At each session, participant's vaped ad lib for 5 min. Blood samples were taken at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 30 min after starting vaping. Participants rated the products on a range of characteristics. The products tested included six 'cig-a-like' and two refillable products, one with variable voltage. We also tested participants' own EC. All products significantly reduced urges to smoke. Refillable products delivered more nicotine and received generally superior ratings in terms of craving relief, subjective nicotine delivery, throat hit and vapour production but in overall ratings, they were joined by a cig-a-like, Blu. Participants puffed more on low nicotine delivery products. Participants' estimates of nicotine delivery from different EC were closely linked to 'throat hit'. Nicotine delivery was less important in the initial product ratings than draw resistance, mouthpiece comfort and effects on reducing urge to smoke. All EC products reduced urges to smoke. Refillable products received generally more favourable ratings than 'cig-a-likes' with similar nicotine content. Perception of nicotine delivery was guided by throat sensations. Lower nicotine delivery was associated with more frequent puffing. The first impressions of EC products are guided less by nicotine delivery than by sensory signals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 24%
Unspecified 5 20%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 8 32%
Psychology 5 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Environmental Science 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Other 3 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,822,203
of 12,406,609 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#543
of 4,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,339
of 357,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#15
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,406,609 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 357,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.