Complete An Annotated Bibliography By Locating And Citing ✓ Solved

Complete an annotated bibliography by locating, citing, and

Complete an annotated bibliography by locating, citing, and annotating sources for your research question. Tasks: Find two appropriate non-scholarly sources using a search engine (e.g., Google or Bing) that pass the CRAAP test (examples: newspaper or magazine article, professional organization or trade journal article, .gov report, expert blog post). Record URLs. Create APA references for the two non-scholarly sources. Write annotations for the two non-scholarly sources: each annotation must be two paragraphs. Paragraph 1: identify source type; state the thesis/main claim; describe evidence/support (at least two examples); note other important claims. Paragraph 2: evaluate how adequately the source supports its thesis; discuss currency relative to your research question; assess credibility and authority; note limitations; and explain how the source helps answer your research question. Include revised references and annotations for the sources from Week 3 (two scholarly articles and one e-book), incorporating instructor feedback. Develop a thesis statement (no more than two sentences) based on your research question and paste it at the beginning of the bibliography. Format the final annotated bibliography in APA style: double-spaced, include a title page, and use the provided All Sources Annotated Bibliography template. The final submission must include two scholarly articles, one e-book, and two non-scholarly sources. Record URLs for web sources.

Paper For Above Instructions

Thesis Statement

Although electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have potential as a harm-reduction tool for adult smokers, the balance of current evidence indicates they present significant risks—particularly for youth initiation—and their net public health impact depends on regulation, marketing, and cessation support policies (Hajek et al., 2019; Hartmann-Boyce et al., 2021).

Annotated Bibliography

Non-scholarly Source 1 — CDC Fact Sheet

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, October 18). Electronic cigarettes. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/index.htm

Paragraph 1: This is a government public-health web page providing an overview of e-cigarettes, their components, and population-level trends. The page's primary claim is that e-cigarette use has health risks, including nicotine addiction and lung injury, and that youth use has increased substantially. Evidence includes national surveillance data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey showing prevalence increases among adolescents and reports of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI) cases. The CDC also cites toxicology findings showing harmful chemicals (e.g., volatile organic compounds) in some e-cigarette aerosols and links nicotine exposure to adolescent brain development concerns.

Paragraph 2: The CDC page provides authoritative, current (2022) public-health surveillance and summaries, appropriate for understanding population trends and official guidance (CDC, 2022). Its currency and government sourcing make it credible for policy and background context, though it summarizes rather than presents original peer-reviewed research. Limitations include high-level presentation without full methodological detail for cited studies. For the research question, the CDC source helps anchor concerns about youth initiation and public-health implications, supporting arguments about the need for regulatory measures to mitigate population-level harms.

Non-scholarly Source 2 — American Lung Association Overview

American Lung Association. (2020). E-cigarettes and lung health: What you need to know. https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/e-cigarettes-vaping

Paragraph 1: This professional organization web page argues that e-cigarettes are harmful to lung health and may act as a gateway for young people to nicotine dependence. It supports this claim with summaries of clinical reports of lung injury, youth-use statistics from national surveys, and expert consensus statements. The site references clinical case series (EVALI), the presence of respiratory irritants in aerosols, and behavioral studies showing association of e-cigarette use with later combustible cigarette initiation among adolescents.

Paragraph 2: The American Lung Association (ALA) provides advocacy-oriented, medically informed material useful for public-education contexts (ALA, 2020). Its evidence summaries are credible but selective, emphasizing harms for advocacy purposes; thus, readers should supplement with balanced clinical trials or systematic reviews when assessing cessation potential. For this research question the ALA resource supports the public-health and youth-protection perspective and helps justify examining both harm-reduction claims and youth-risk tradeoffs.

Scholarly Source 1 — Randomized Trial

Hajek, P., Phillips-Waller, A., Przulj, D., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Bisal, N., ... & Dawkins, L. (2019). A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779

Paragraph 1: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) compares e-cigarettes with nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) for smoking cessation among motivated adult smokers. The principal claim is that e-cigarettes combined with behavioral support were more effective for smoking cessation at one year than NRT. Evidence includes higher biochemically verified cessation rates in the e-cigarette arm and analyses of adverse events and product use patterns. The paper also reports differences in continued nicotine use between groups, noting many e-cigarette users continued nicotine consumption.

Paragraph 2: The RCT provides strong causal evidence for cessation efficacy in a clinical trial setting (Hajek et al., 2019), making it highly relevant to the question of e-cigarettes as cessation aids. Limitations include trial conditions (behavioral support, product selection) that may not generalize to real-world consumer use, and the ongoing nicotine dependence observed among some participants raises concerns about net harm reduction. This study helps substantiate the claim that e-cigarettes can aid adult cessation while underscoring the need to weigh persistence of nicotine exposure.

Scholarly Source 2 — Systematic Review

Hartmann-Boyce, J., Livingstone-Banks, J., Ordóñez-Mena, J. M., & Aveyard, P. (2021). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4), CD010216. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub5

Paragraph 1: This Cochrane review synthesizes randomized and observational studies assessing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. Its central claim is that evidence suggests e-cigarettes may help some smokers quit but that overall evidence quality varies. The review presents pooled estimates of cessation outcomes, subgroup analyses by product type and support level, and assessment of adverse events and continued nicotine use.

Paragraph 2: The Cochrane methodology provides high-quality synthesis and transparent risk-of-bias assessment, making this source authoritative for weighing evidence (Hartmann-Boyce et al., 2021). Limitations include heterogeneity across studies, short follow-up in many trials, and evolving device technologies that make older studies less applicable. The review helps balance clinical-trial efficacy evidence against uncertainties about long-term population effects.

E-book / Report — Royal College of Physicians

Royal College of Physicians. (2016). Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction. RCP. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction

Paragraph 1: This policy report/book-length e-publication argues that e-cigarettes present substantially lower risk than combustible cigarettes and can be part of tobacco-harm-reduction strategies. It supports this with toxicological comparisons, modeling studies of population impact, and policy analysis. Examples include chemical assays showing fewer toxicants in e-cigarette aerosol and modelled scenarios where switching reduces smoking-attributable mortality.

Paragraph 2: The RCP report is influential in policy debates and offers a harm-reduction framing supported by scientific data and modeling. Its limitations include assumptions in model projections and potential underestimation of youth uptake risks. For the research question, it provides a counterbalance to harm-focused advocacy and supports exploration of regulatory frameworks that maximize cessation benefit while minimizing youth initiation.

Summary Synthesis

The selected sources together show a nuanced picture: randomized trials and systematic reviews indicate e-cigarettes can assist some adult smokers to quit (Hajek et al., 2019; Hartmann-Boyce et al., 2021), while public-health sources highlight youth uptake and population risks (CDC, 2022; ALA, 2020). Policy documents (Royal College of Physicians, 2016) argue for regulated harm-reduction approaches. This body of evidence supports a thesis that e-cigarettes have therapeutic potential but require strong regulation and youth-protection measures to realize net public-health benefit.

References

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022, October 18). Electronic cigarettes. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/e-cigarettes/index.htm
  • American Lung Association. (2020). E-cigarettes and lung health: What you need to know. https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/e-cigarettes-vaping
  • Hajek, P., Phillips-Waller, A., Przulj, D., Pesola, F., Myers Smith, K., Bisal, N., ... & Dawkins, L. (2019). A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(7), 629–637. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1808779
  • Hartmann-Boyce, J., Livingstone-Banks, J., Ordóñez-Mena, J. M., & Aveyard, P. (2021). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4), CD010216. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub5
  • Royal College of Physicians. (2016). Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction. https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction
  • Public Health England. (2015). E-cigarettes: An evidence update. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update
  • World Health Organization. (2020). Electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENDS/ENNDS). https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/heating-and-vaping-products
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2020). Youth tobacco prevention plan. https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2016). E-cigarette use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. https://e-cigarettes.surgeongeneral.gov/documentation.html
  • Glantz, S. A., & Bareham, D. W. (2018). Electronic cigarettes: Use, effects on smoking initiation, and public health implications. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 215–235. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-013757

Related Assignments