背景:电子烟(ECIG)设备和液体特性的自我报告并不总是准确的或与研究人员测量的特性一致。比较了两种测量ECIG特征的方法:用户自我报告和评分者编码的图片。
方法:独家ECIG用户(N=321)在设备上报告(一次性,可再填充,可调功率,品牌)和液体(尼古丁浓度,配方,风味)特性。要测量设备类型,他们选择了最能描述他们的设备的术语(“类似的,\"\"vape笔,\"\"mod,\"\"pod,\“\”不知道\”)和最类似于他们设备的图片(cig-like,vape笔,boxmod,USB形状的吊舱,泪滴形豆荚,none).受访者上传设备和液体图片,和独立的评估者编码这些相同的特征。方法之间的一致性用科恩的kappa和类内相关性进行了检验,包括“不知道”的回答,包括和排除在分析之外。
结果:无论如何处理“不知道”的反应,一次性协议最高(95.3-97.7%),可再填充(96.3%),可调功率(83.6-88.7%),和品牌(77.9-80.4%),和较低的尼古丁浓度(72.7%),尼古丁配方(58.6-79.4%),和风味(66.2%)。对于设备类型,使用基于术语(67.9-78.8%)和基于图片相似性(71.7%)的项目时,协议是中等的。对于条款,最大的差异是根据自我报告归类为“vapepens”的设备;其中,70.6%被评分者归类为“豆荚”。对于图片相似性,13%的用户报告说他们的设备与任何图片都不相似;评估者将这些设备分类为USB形pod(50.0%)和mods(23.8%)。
结论:自我报告可能足以衡量某些特征(品牌,一次性的,可再填充,可调功率),但不是其他(尼古丁浓度和配方,和一些味道)。
BACKGROUND: Self-reports of electronic cigarette (ECIG) device and liquid characteristics are not always accurate or consistent with characteristics as measured by researchers. Two methods for measuring ECIG characteristics were compared: user self-reports and rater-coded pictures.
METHODS: Exclusive ECIG users (N = 321) reported on device (disposable, refillable, adjustable power, brand) and liquid (nicotine concentration, formulation, flavor) characteristics. To measure device type, they chose the term that best described their device (\"cig-alike,\" \"vape pen,\" \"mod,\" \"pod,\" \"don\'t know\") and the picture that best resembled their device (cig-alike, vape pen, box mod, USB-shaped pod, teardrop-shaped pod, none). Respondents uploaded device and liquid pictures, and independent raters coded these same features. Agreement between methods was examined with Cohen\'s kappa and intra-class correlations, including with \"don\'t know\" responses included and excluded from analyses.
RESULTS: Regardless of how \"don\'t know\" responses were treated, agreement was highest for disposable (95.3-97.7%), refillable (96.3%), adjustable power (83.6-88.7%), and brand (77.9-80.4%), and lower for nicotine concentration (72.7%), nicotine formulation (58.6-79.4%), and flavor (66.2%). For device type, agreement was moderate using both term-based (67.9-78.8%) and picture resemblance-based (71.7%) items. For terms, the greatest discrepancy was for devices classified as \"vape pens\" by self-reports; of these, 70.6% were classified as \"pods\" by raters. For picture resemblance, ∼13% of users reported that their device resembled none of the pictures; raters classified these devices as USB-shaped pods (50.0%) and mods (23.8%).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-reports may be sufficient for measuring some characteristics (brand, disposable, refillable, adjustable power), but not others (nicotine concentration and formulation, and some flavor).