RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Host–agent–vector–environment measures for electronic cigarette research used in NIH grants
JF Tobacco Control
JO Tob Control
FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
SP s43
OP s49
DO 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054032
VO 29
IS Suppl 1
A1 Mary L Garcia-Cazarin
A1 Rachel J Mandal
A1 Rachel Grana
A1 Kay L Wanke
A1 Helen I Meissner
YR 2020
UL http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/29/Suppl_1/s43.abstract
AB Objective The purpose of this study is to describe the focus and comprehensiveness of domains measured in e-cigarette research.Methods A portfolio analysis of National Institutes of Health grants focusing on e-cigarette research and funded between the fiscal years 2007 and 2015 was conducted. Grant proposals were retrieved using a government database and coded using the Host–Agent–Vector-Environment (HAVE) model as a framework to characterise the measures proposed. Eighty-one projects met the criteria for inclusion in the analysis.Results The primary HAVE focus most commonly found was Host (73%), followed by Agent (21%), Vector (6%) and Environment (0%). Intrapersonal measures and use trajectories were the most common measures in studies that include Host measures (n=59 and n=51, respectively). Product composition was the most common area of measurement in Agent studies (n=24), whereas Marketing (n=21) was the most common (n=21) area of Vector measurement. When Environment measures were examined as secondary measures in studies, they primarily focused on measuring Peer, Occupation and Social Networks (n=18). Although all studies mentioned research on e-cigarettes, most (n=52; 64%) did not specify the type of e-cigarette device or liquid solution under study.Conclusions This analysis revealed a heavy focus on Host measures (73%) and a lack of focus on Environment measures. The predominant focus on Host measures may have the unintended effect of limiting the evidence base for tobacco control and regulatory science. Further, a lack of specificity about the e-cigarette product under study will make comparing results across studies and using the outcomes to inform tobacco policy difficult.