Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 677

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy: E-cigarette survey

Open access
Etter, Jean-François, Bullen, Chris·2011·Addiction

Abstract

AIMS: To assess the profile, utilization patterns, satisfaction and perceived effects among users of electronic cigarettes ('e-cigarettes'). DESIGN AND SETTING: Internet survey in English and French in 2010. MEASUREMENTS: Online questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Visitors of websites and online discussion forums dedicated to e-cigarettes and to smoking cessation. FINDINGS: There were 3587 participants (70% former tobacco smokers, 61% men, mean age 41 years). The median duration of electronic cigarette use was 3 months, users drew 120 puffs/day and used five refills/day. Almost all (97%) used e-cigarettes containing nicotine. Daily users spent $33 per month on these products. Most (96%) said the e-cigarette helped them to quit smoking or reduce their smoking (92%). Reasons for using the e-cigarette included the perception that it was less toxic than tobacco (84%), to deal with craving for tobacco (79%) and withdrawal symptoms (67%), to quit smoking or avoid relapsing (77%), because it was cheaper than smoking (57%) and to deal with situations where smoking was prohibited (39%). Most ex-smokers (79%) feared they might relapse to smoking if they stopped using the e-cigarette. Users of nicotine-containing e-cigarettes reported better relief of withdrawal and a greater effect on smoking cessation than those using non-nicotine e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes were used much as people would use nicotine replacement medications: by former smokers to avoid relapse or as an aid to cut down or quit smoking. Further research should evaluate the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes for administration of nicotine and other substances, and for quitting and relapse prevention.

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 · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 677

Metadata

Authors
Etter, J.-F., & Bullen, C.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07-27
Volume
106
Issue
11
Pages
2017-2028
ISSN
0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2116623625
Cited by
677
References
2
FWCI
34.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy: E-cigarette survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x
The paper
Etter, J.-F., & Bullen, C. (2011). Electronic cigarette: users profile, utilization, satisfaction and perceived efficacy: E-cigarette survey. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x

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.