Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 699

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems

Open access
Adkison, Sarah E., O'Connor, Richard J., Bansal-Travers, Maansi, Hyland, Andrew, Borland, Ron, Yong, Hua-Hie, Cummings, K. Michael, McNeill, Ann, Thrasher, James F., Hammond, David, Fong, Geoffrey T.·2013·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background Electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) initially emerged in 2003 and have since become widely available globally, particularly over the Internet. Purpose Data on ENDS usage patterns are limited. The current paper examines patterns of ENDS awareness, use, and product-associated beliefs among current and former smokers in four countries. Methods Data come from Wave 8 of the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey, collected July 2010 to June 2011 and analyzed through June 2012. Respondents included 5939 current and former smokers in Canada (n=1581); the U.S. (n=1520); the United Kingdom (UK; n=1325); and Australia (n=1513). Results Overall, 46.6% were aware of ENDS (U.S.: 73%, UK: 54%, Canada: 40%, Australia: 20%); 7.6% had tried ENDS (16% of those aware of ENDS); and 2.9% were current users (39% of triers). Awareness of ENDS was higher among younger, non-minority smokers with higher incomes who were heavier smokers. Prevalence of trying ENDS was higher among younger, nondaily smokers with a high income and among those who perceived ENDS as less harmful than traditional cigarettes. Current use was higher among both nondaily and heavy (≥20 cigarettes per day) smokers. In all, 79.8% reported using ENDS because they were considered less harmful than traditional cigarettes; 75.4% stated that they used ENDS to help them reduce their smoking; and 85.1% reported using ENDS to help them quit smoking. Conclusions Awareness of ENDS is high, especially in countries where they are legal (i.e., the U.S. and UK). Because trial was associated with nondaily smoking and a desire to quit smoking, ENDS may have potential to serve as a cessation aid.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.018

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 19 references

Cited by

See all 699

Metadata

Authors
Adkison, S. E., O'Connor, R. J., Bansal-Travers, M., Hyland, A., Borland, R., Yong, H.-H., Cummings, K. M., McNeill, A., Thrasher, J. F., Hammond, D., & Fong, G. T.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-03
Volume
44
Issue
3
Pages
207-215
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2100322844
Cited by
699
References
19
FWCI
66.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.018
The paper
Adkison, S. E., O'Connor, R. J., Bansal-Travers, M., Hyland, A., Borland, R., Yong, H.-H., Cummings, K. M., McNeill, A., Thrasher, J. F., Hammond, D., & Fong, G. T. (2013). Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.10.018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.