HLSC122 Assessment 3: A Critical Review of E-Cigarette Research

This report critically appraises a research article focusing on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. The appraisal covers aspects such as the author's expertise, research questions, methodology, results, and limitations. It assesses the validity and applicability of the research findings in clinical practice, considering potential barriers to implementation. The report concludes that while e-cigarettes show promise in smoking cessation, further research is needed across diverse populations. This student assignment is available on Desklib, a platform offering a variety of study tools and resources for students.

Title
Author
Professor
University
City, State
Date

NCBI. (2014). Real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: a
cross-sectional population study. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24846453https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC4171752/
PART A
Introduction
An estimated 6 million people die each year due to cigarette smoking. The use of
electronic cigarettes (e-cigarette) is rapidly increasing to aid cessation of cigarette smoking. A
study conducted in the English population was conducted to study the impacts of e-cigarettes.
The study compared the use of over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) with e-
cigarettes. The study involved 5863 recent adult smokers that have attempted to quit smoking
using established methodologies (NCBI, 2014). From the statements, it implies that the research
is relevant to the selected scenario (Young, & Solomon, 2009). This report discusses the research
findings of the stated study. It also discusses what the impact of using e-cigarettes for smoking
cessation, and justifies the need for the study. How the research design influenced the study and
what influences the effectiveness of the use of e-cigarettes are discussed. Barriers to
implementing the research in medical setups are also discussed. A conclusion is made on the
research findings.
Authorship
The author of the report uses a straight forward writing. The author gives a detailed
analysis of what the study is about. They discuss the how e-cigarettes are used. They explain that
e-cigarettes use nicotine without tobacco in form of vapor produce in the mouth. Lack of tobacco

combustion is perceived to reduce smoking cravings. They go ahead to state that the devices use
battery. By choosing a certain population and giving the exact statistics used in the study the
authors show their expertise in conducting detailed analysis. Selection of these adults is done
through random sampling. Both cigarettes and tobacco smokers were examined. Those who
made attempts to quit smoking are also part of the research. Random sampling shows that no
biasness is involved in the research.
They also use proper referencing for the statistics given and the reader can evaluate what
the authors’ objective is ( Editors of Clinical Research in Practice: The Journal of Team
Hippocrates, 2018). No political motive is seen in the writing (The Writing Centre, n.d.). From
the report it can be concluded that the authors’ objective is to study the effectiveness of e-
cigarettes among cigarette smokers. The research was also conducted recently (Students 4 best
evidence, 2016).
Research questions, aim or hypothesis
The research questions used in the study are “What is the impact of the use of e-
cigarettes, how many attempts have been made to quit smoking”. This question was used to
interview adult smokers. Using an approved methodology to assess how e-cigarettes aid smoking
cessation compared to NRT is the stated of the research. The report further states that adults
aged 16 years and above are examined every month. The aim of choosing this age group is
because high school teenagers also smoke. This shows that all age groups are involved. The
authors have presented a hypothesis. They begin by giving a proposed view about the research
topic. They explain how e-cigarettes are used and research findings by other authors. Statistical

data is given as recent findings and are cited. This shows that research findings from the study
are factual (Students 4 best evidence, 2016).
Research Design
The authors have stated the research design that was used to carry out the study. Cross-
sectional household surveys have been used in England. Cross-sectional study requires that the
assessment is done once. The research was conducted between July 2009 and February 2014.
Cross-sectional study also requires that information is captured directly from sample members.
The study also examines abstinence rates reported individually. The authors also state that the
study is part of the Smoking Toolkit Study; which provides useful information about the
smoking prevalence in England. All interviewers are assessed using the face-to-face computer
technique by a qualified interviewer (Marchevsky, 2000, p. 140).
Research methods
The research design is valid for the result questions. The research methods are
quantitative. Numbers are used to describe and analyze information collected. The report states
that the study was conducted between July 2009 and February 2014. It also gives a table that
evaluates the quitting method. Participant characteristics are given as gender, age group, attempts
to quit smoking, age, social grade, cigarettes smoked per day and the methods of quitting i.e.
either using e-cigarettes or NRT (Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE), 2018).
Percentages are also used to express values. Mean values are also calculated (Fricker, n.d.).
The research methods are also qualitative. Words are used to analyze the data.
Abbreviations are well stated in full. The results section contains detailed information about the
findings. The tables are well illustrated to retrieve relevant information. Both percentages and the

exact value representing the percentages are given (Fricker,n.d.). The chosen method however
only studies the quitting behavior.
Results and limitations of the study
The study has answered the research question (PMC, 2010). The question resulted into
more questions being asked in order to acquire information. The results of the research answer
the question by giving detailed analysis with statistics of the effectiveness of e-cigarettes.
Therefore the findings are valid (The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 2018).
The research should have included people who have tried smoking before and they were unable
to get into the habit. It should have also covered those who have sorted to other quitting methods
if the e-cigarette is not effective on them. The side effects and dangers of using e-cigarettes
should have been stated if any. The locality of the research should not have been done in
England only. Other locations should have been used in research for better analysis.
The evidence provided is useful for decision making. The statistics given can be
understood. The research paper can also be critically appraised. A thorough literature research
was also carried out. The introduction gives detailed analysis of what had been done by other
authors with correct citations. It is also published in English. English is a commonly used
language in research. The method of research was also approved by an ethics committee.
PART B
Application of the research in clinical practice

The research can be applied in clinical research. It has an objective. The research
question is answered by the research. Research methods are used to carry out the study. The
research methods are approved. Findings are well explained and statistical data is provided. This
implies that estimated health facts can be produced. The research was successful in the English
population. This implies that it could be applied done in other regions as well. The author also
acknowledges that apart from the cross-section method, other methods could also be deployed.
Barriers of applying the research into clinical practice
In its conclusion, the author acknowledges that the study has its limitations (Specialist
Unit for Review Evidence (SURE), 2018). The study was done in England alone. The prevalence
of e-cigarettes has increased with time. Therefore, it is not certain that the initiative would still
work for other populations. The findings will have to be revisited. The study included both long
term and short term smokers there the short term and long-term effectiveness of e-cigarettes
cannot be determined (PMC, 2010).
Conclusion
E-cigarettes are important in smoking cessation. The author of the research paper
provides facts about the effectiveness of e-cigarettes. Although the study was done in England,
more research has to be done in other population to determine its effectiveness.

References
Editors of Clinical Research in Practice: The Journal of Team Hippocrates. (2018). Guidelines
for writing and reviewing a critical appraisal. Retrieved from
https://library.wayne.edu/resources/digital/dc/crp/critical_appraisal_guidelines.pdf
Fricker, A. (n.d.). Critical appraisal of research. Retrieved from
http://vhttps://www.kcl.ac.uk/library/help/documents/casbasics.pdf
Marchevsky D. (2000). Critical Appraisal of Medical Literature [Critical Appraisal of Different
Study Designs. In: Critical Appraisal of Medical Literature] (p. 140).
NCBI. (2014). Real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes when used to aid smoking cessation: a
cross-sectional population study. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24846453https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC4171752/
PMC. (2010). Appraising Qualitative Research in Health Education: Guidelines for Public
Health Educators. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012622/
Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE). (2018). Questions to assist with the critical
appraisal of cross-sectional studies. Retrieved from
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1142974/SURE-CA-form-for-
Cross-sectional_2018.pdf
Students for best evidence. (2016, September 6). Critical Appraisal: A Checklist. Retrieved
from https://www.students4bestevidence.net/critical-appraisal-checklist/

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. (2018, September 5). Evidence-Based
Medicine: Appraise the Evidence. Retrieved from
http://mdanderson.libguides.com/c.php?g=249812&p=1663286
The Writing Center:. (n.d.). Checklist for analyzing research material. Retrieved from
https://wac.colostate.edu/books/informedwriter/chapter7.pdfhttps://
writingcenter.unc.edu/faculty-resources/classroom-handouts/checklist-for-analyzing-
research-material/
Young, J. M., & Solomon, M. J. (2009). How to critically appraise an article. Nature clinical
practice. Gastroenterology & hepatology. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23801220_How_to_critically_appraise_an_arti
cle