| Title |
VapeCons: E-cigarette user conventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Public Health Policy, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1057/jphp.2015.31 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca S Williams |
| Abstract |
E-cigarette 'vaping conventions' provide a venue for user social networking, parties, and 'try before you buy' access to a wide range of e-cigarette products. This study identifies and describes vaping conventions, raising awareness of this potentially problematic practice. Conventions were identified via Google searches in April and May 2014 and August 2015. Details captured included location, sponsors, admission cost, event features, and promotions. 41 distinct organizations have planned 90 vaping conventions in 37 different locations since 2010. Conventions promoted access to a wide range of product vendors, seminars, social interactions with other users, parties, gifts, vaping contests, and other events. E-cigarette use at conventions was encouraged. Vaping conventions promote e-cigarette use and social norms without public health having a voice to educate attendees about negative consequences of use. Future research should focus on the effects of attending these conventions on attendees and on indoor air quality in vapor-filled convention rooms.Journal of Public Health Policy advance online publication, 1 October 2015; doi:10.1057/jphp.2015.31. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 23% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 5% |
| Finland | 1 | 5% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 91% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 8 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 19% |
| Psychology | 5 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,176,943
of 24,696,958 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Public Health Policy
#102
of 837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,911
of 280,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Public Health Policy
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,696,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.