Skip to main content

Table 5 Content analysis thematic results, by tobacco use trajectory

From: “It is the One Thing that has Worked”: facilitators and barriers to switching to nicotine salt pod system e-cigarettes among African American and Latinx people who smoke: a content analysis

 

All

N (%)

Exclusive JUUL use

N (%)

Dual JUUL and cigarette use

N (%)

Continued cigarette use

N (%)

Liked

n items = 181

n items = 55

n items = 103

n items = 23

Clean/smell

42 (23.2%)

18 (32.7%)

19 (18.4%)

5 (21.7%)

Convenience

35 (19.3%)

9 (16.4%)

22 (21.4%)

4 (17.4%)

Health

21 (11.6%)

11 (20.0%)

9 (8.7%)

1 (4.3%)

Cost

16 (8.8%)

2 (3.6%)

11 (10.7%)

3 (13.0%)

Taste

22 (12.2%)

5 (9.1%)

14 (13.6%)

3 (13.0%)

Subjective effects

11 (6.1%)

2 (3.6%)

9 (8.7%)

0 (0.0%)

Cravings/cessation

12 (6.6%)

5 (9.1%)

5 (4.9%)

2 (8.7%)

Nothing

3 (1.7%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (13.0%)

Social

9 (5.0%)

0 (0.0%)

8 (7.8%)

1 (4.3%)

Use anywherea

10 (5.5%)

3 (5.5%)

6 (5.8%)

1 (4.3%)

Helped

n items = 129

n items = 38

n items = 75

n items = 16

Self-regulation/motivation

34 (26.4%)

11 (28.9%)

20 (26.7%)

3 (18.8%)

Nothing/NA

19 (14.7%)

1 (2.6%)

11 (14.7%)

7 (43.8%)

Cravings/cessation

8 (6.2%)

4 (10.5%)

4 (5.3%)

0 (0.0%)

Health

10 (7.8%)

1 (2.6%)

7 (9.3%)

2 (12.5%)

Convenience

11 (8.5%)

5 (13.2%)

5 (6.7%)

1 (6.3%)

Social

6 (4.7%)

3 (7.9%)

2 (2.7%)

1 (6.3%

Cost

7 (5.4%)

4 (10.5%)

2 (2.7%)

1 (6.3%)

Program support

9 (7.0%)

2 (5.3%)

7 (9.3%)

0 (0.0%)

Practiceb

13 (10.1%)

4 (10.5%)

9 (12.0%)

0 (0.0%)

Subjective experienceb

1 (0.8%)

1 (2.6%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

Flavora

7 (5.4%)

1 (2.6%)

5 (6.7%)

1 (6.3%)

Smella

2 (1.6%)

1 (2.6%)

1 (1.3%)

0 (0.0%)

Othera

2 (1.6%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (2.7%)

0 (0.0%)

Not liked

n items = 125

n items = 33

n items = 76

n items = 16

Nothing

40 (32.0%)

17 (51.5%)

22 (28.9%)

1 (6.3%)

Side effects (coughing/harshness)

30 (24.0%)

5 (15.2%)

16 (21.1%)

9 (56.3%)

Mechanical issues—pods

12 (9.6%)

2 (6.1%)

9 (11.8%)

1 (6.3%)

Inconvenienceb

7 (5.6%)

1 (3.0%)

5 (6.6%)

1 (6.3%)

Shapeb

4 (3.2%)

2 (6.1%)

2 (2.6%)

0 (0.0%)

Tasteb

3 (2.4%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (2.6%)

1 (6.3%)

Learning to useb

1 (0.8%)

1 (3.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

User issuesa

8 (6.4%)

1 (3.0%)

7 (9.2%)

0 (0.0%)

Mechanical issues—batterya

8 (6.4%)

3 (9.1%)

4 (5.3%)

1 (6.3%)

Comparabilitya

7 (5.6%)

0 (0.0%)

6 (7.9%)

1 (6.3%)

Nicotine exposurea

4 (3.2%)

1 (3.0%)

2 (2.6%)

1 (6.3%)

Costa

1 (0.8%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.3%)

0 (0.0%)

Difficult

n items = 117

n items = 33

n items = 68

n items = 16

Side effects

32 (27.4%)

4 (12.1%)

20 (29.4%)

8 (50.0%)

Nothing

48 (41.0%)

20 (60.6%)

24 (35.3%)

4 (25.0%)

Comparability

10 (8.5%)

1 (3.0%)

8 (11.8%)

1 (6.3%)

Other

3 (2.6%)

1 (3.0%)

2 (2.9%)

0 (0.0%)

Tasteb

2 (1.7%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.5%)

1 (6.3%)

Readiness to quitb

2 (1.7%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (2.9%)

0 (0.0%)

Strength/nicotine intensityb

2 (1.7%)

1 (3.0%)

1 (1.5%)

0 (0.0%)

Mechanical issues—podsb

1 (0.9%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.5%)

0 (0.0%)

Learning to useb

1 (0.9%)

1 (3.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

User issuesa

6 (5.1%)

1 (3.0%)

3 (4.4%)

2 (12.5%)

Craving for Cigarettesa

6 (5.1%)

2 (6.1%)

4 (5.9%)

0 (0.0%)

Sociala

3 (2.6%)

2 (6.1%)

1 (1.5%)

0 (0.0%)

Costa

1 (0.9%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.5%)

0 (0.0%)

  1. Table displays content analysis thematic results for responses to what participants liked about using ECs, what helped participants with switching to ECs, what participants did not like about using ECs, and what made switching to ECs difficult. Results are reported for all and by tobacco use trajectory
  2. aTheme is unique to Latinx/San Diego sample
  3. bTheme is unique to African American/Kansas City sample