Online Patient-Provider E-cigarette Consultations Perceptions of Safety and Harm

Introduction:
This text provides an analysis of online patient-provider communications regarding e-cigarettes, also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS). The study aimed to identify patient concerns, provider advice and attitudes, and research needs related to e-cigarettes. The key points and main message of the text are summarized below.

Key Points:

* The study analyzed data from a network providing free medical advice from approximately 72,000 U.S.-licensed providers.
* Patient questions primarily concerned specific side effects and harms, general safety, e-cigarettes as quit aids, comparison of e-cigarette harms relative to combusted tobacco, use with pre-existing medical conditions, and nicotine-free e-cigarettes.
* Half of provider responses discussed e-cigarettes as a harm reduction option, while 26% discussed them as quit aids.
* Overall, 47% of providers' responses represented a negative attitude toward e-cigarettes, 33% were neutral, and 20% were positive.
* Attitudes did not differ statistically by medical specialty.
* Provider responses positive toward e-cigarettes received significantly more "Thanks" from patients.
* Lacking conclusive evidence of e-cigarette safety or efficacy, healthcare providers encouraged smoking cessation and recommended first-line cessation treatment approaches.

Main Message:
The analysis of online patient-provider communications offers valuable insights into consumer health experiences with emerging alternative tobacco products. Patients are primarily concerned with the harms and safety of e-cigarettes, and they prefer provider responses that are positively inclined toward these products. However, due to the lack of conclusive evidence regarding e-cigarette safety and efficacy, healthcare providers generally encourage smoking cessation and recommend established cessation treatment approaches.

Brown-Johnson, Cati. “Online Patient-Provider E-Cigarette Consultations Perceptions of Safety and Harm.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 51, no. 6 (2016): 882–89. https://doi.org/http:/ /dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.06.018.