Table 5.
Content analysis thematic results, by tobacco use trajectory
| 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%) |
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
aTheme is unique to Latinx/San Diego sample
bTheme is unique to African American/Kansas City sample