Undesirable events during electronic cigarette use prior to the implementation of Article 20 of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive: Findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Article 20 of the European Union (EU) Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) sets forth provisions on electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) product regulation, such as child-proof packaging and protection against e-liquid refilling without leakage. The aim of the current study was to examine frequencies and correlates of experiencing undesirable events during e-cigarette use related to e-cigarette product design parameters prior to the implementation of the EU TPD. Material and Methods The EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Wave 1 survey was conducted with adult cigarette smokers from June to September 2016 across Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain. Results Among our sample of adult cigarette smokers, one in five reported having ever used e-cigarettes. Prevalence of current e-cigarette use (daily or weekly) was very low (1.5%). Major undesirable events, such as battery exploding or catching fire (1.9%) or overheating (11%) were uncommon. Among those reporting at least monthly use and whose usual/current brand has a tank that you fill with liquids, 18.8% experienced spilling during refill and 18.5% experienced e-liquid leaking during use. Nearly one-quarter reported that the e-liquid cap was easy for a child to open. Conclusions In light of the EU TPD establishing standards around e-cigarette design parameters to mitigate undesirable events and risks during e-cigarette use, these findings further support the need for its implementation, as well as for monitoring undesirable events experienced during e-cigarette use once Article 20 is fully implemented. Acknowledgements EUREST-PLUS is a Horizon2020 project conducted by researchers throughout Europe from both the six participating countries as well as other institution partners within Europe and abroad. Partnering organizations include the European Network on Smoking Prevention (Belgium), Kings College London (United Kingdom), German Cancer Research Centre (Germany), University of Maastricht (The Netherlands), University of Athens (Greece), Aer Pur Romania (Romania), European Respiratory Society (Switzerland), the University of Waterloo (Canada), the Catalan Institute of Oncology (Catalonia, Spain), Smoking or Health Hungarian Foundation (Hungary), Health Promotion Foundation (Poland), University of Crete (Greece), and Kantar Public Brussels (Belgium). Funding The EUREST-PLUS Project takes place with the financial support of the European Commission, Horizon 2020 HCO-6-2015 program (EUREST-PLUS: 681109; C. Vardavas) and the University of Waterloo (GT. Fong). Additional support was provided to the University of Waterloo by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (FDN-148477). GT. Fong was supported by a Senior Investigator Grant from the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. E. Fernández is partly supported by Ministry of Universities and Research, Government of Catalonia (2017SGR139) and by the Instituto Carlos III and co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) (INT16/00211 and INT17/00103), Government of Spain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".