For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work. Use this extract to study how a research proposal is structured and argued, then build your own from your own reading, your own design choices and your own words. Follow SUSS rules on academic integrity and on citing any AI tool you use.
This extract answers the July 2026 End-of-Course Assessment for HBC201 Research Methods for the Social and Behavioural Sciences, which asks for a vaping research proposal built around Singapore’s “Kpod” concerns. It condenses all five parts. The full task is on the HBC201 ECA question page, the planning advice is in how to write the HBC201 ECA research proposal, and a broader module answer is in the earlier HBC201 sample.
What the brief asks
| Part | Marks | What markers look for |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 Title and abstract | 5 | A specific title and an abstract of no more than 150 words that states problem, method and purpose |
| Q2 Background and literature review | 35 | Critical review of at least five journal articles on a vaping issue in Singapore: methods, strengths, weaknesses, a gap, a specific research question and its importance |
| Q3 Research design | 40 | Justified choice of approach (two or more reasons); population, sample size, recruitment, instrument and procedure; appendix with question origin; two or more validity threats with remedies |
| Q4 Ethical issues | 10 | Two or more participant-related issues, each paired with a concrete action |
| Q5 Limitations | 10 | Two or more limitations of the chosen methodology that the study itself cannot fix |
The whole essay is 3,000 words, so this extract compresses each part and shows only a short appendix.
Q1 Title and abstract
Title
Perceived Harm, Perceived Legal Risk and Vaping Among Young Adults in Singapore After the 2025 Kpod Measures: A Cross-Sectional Survey Proposal
Abstract
Singapore has banned the purchase, possession and use of e-vaporisers since 2018, yet recent studies show that vaping persists among young adults, and the 2025 emergence of etomidate-laced “Kpods” has raised official concern. Existing Singapore research is largely qualitative or drawn from specific groups, and most of it predates the September 2025 measures. This proposal describes an anonymous, cross-sectional online survey of 480 (illustrative) residents aged 18 to 30. The questionnaire measures vaping status, perceived harm, perceived legal risk, social media exposure and Kpod awareness. Logistic regression will test which factors are associated with current vaping. Safeguards address self-incrimination, anonymity and distress. Findings could help refine prevention messages.
Q2 Background and literature review
Background
Possession, use and purchase of e-vaporisers has been prohibited since 1 February 2018, with a fine of up to $2,000 (Health Sciences Authority [HSA], n.d.). In August 2025 the Minister for Health announced that etomidate would be listed as a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act from 1 September 2025, with a fine and a three-month rehabilitation programme for first-time abusers, and higher fines for ordinary vaping (Ministry of Health [MOH], 2025). The same speech reported that about 80% of etomidate abusers were under 30 (MOH, 2025).
Critical review of the Singapore evidence
Ng et al. (2024) surveyed 550 adults aged 21 to 40 by convenience sampling and found that 16.9% had ever used e-cigarettes. Recall of vaping-related social media content was linked to a more positive overall view of vaping but not to ever-use. Tan et al. (2024) ran ten focus groups with 63 Singaporeans aged 21 to 40 and argued that visible peer vaping and perceived weak enforcement normalise the behaviour. Ahmad and Lim (2026) interviewed 15 young adults aged 18 to 35, who cited health effects and legal risk as reasons to quit and found existing antivaping messages generic.
Shahwan et al. (2026) analysed a weighted national sample of 2,600 youths aged 15 to 35 and reported that 18.3% had ever vaped, with vaping linked to smoking and hazardous drinking. van der Eijk et al. (2026) interviewed 12 practitioners and found that patients hide vaping for fear of being reported. Asharani et al. (2024) surveyed people with depressive or psychotic disorders and found about 30% had ever used electronic nicotine delivery systems.
| Study | Method | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ng et al. (2024) | Cross-sectional survey, n = 550, convenience sample | Links perceptions and social media exposure to use; regression analysis | Non-probability sample; self-reported use of an illegal behaviour; no measure of legal risk |
| Tan et al. (2024) | Ten focus groups, n = 63 | Rich account of normalisation and attraction | Group settings may suppress admissions; findings not generalisable |
| Ahmad and Lim (2026) | In-depth interviews, n = 15, thematic analysis | Two independent coders; actionable message feedback | Small sample; participants already reflecting on quitting |
| Shahwan et al. (2026) | National cross-sectional survey, n = 2,600, weighted | Large, census-weighted sample; validated alcohol measure | Ever-vaping only; fieldwork ended mid-2023, before the Kpod measures |
| van der Eijk et al. (2026) | Interviews with 12 clinicians | Exposes how illegality shapes care | Second-hand view of users; small purposive sample |
| Asharani et al. (2024) | Cross-sectional survey of clinical patients | Reaches a group rarely studied | Clinical population limits transfer to young adults generally |
Gap, research question and importance
Together these studies describe prevalence, perceptions and reasons for quitting, but none measures perceived legal risk alongside perceived harm, and none reflects conditions after September 2025. The study therefore asks: among Singapore residents aged 18 to 30, how are perceived harm, perceived legal risk and vaping-related social media exposure associated with current vaping, and how aware are respondents of Kpods?
The answer matters because Shahwan et al. (2026) show that vaping continues despite prohibition, and Ahmad and Lim (2026) show that young adults distrust generic warnings. Evidence on which beliefs actually separate vapers from non-vapers would let agencies target messages rather than repeat them.
Hire a Professional Essay & Assignment Writer for completing your Academic Assessments
Native Singapore Writers Team
- 100% Plagiarism-Free Essay
- Highest Satisfaction Rate
- Free Revision
- On-Time Delivery
Q3 Research design
Why a quantitative design
First, the question asks how several variables are associated with an outcome, which needs numerical measurement and statistical testing. Second, the qualitative studies above (Ahmad & Lim, 2026; Tan et al., 2024) have already described themes; a survey can now test how widely those themes hold across a larger group. Third, anonymous online questionnaires suit sensitive questions about illegal behaviour better than face-to-face interviews.
Method
Population and sample. The target population is Singapore residents aged 18 to 30. A sample of 480 is illustrative: about 385 respondents give a margin of error near 5% at 95% confidence for a single proportion, and roughly 25% is added for incomplete or ineligible responses. Quota targets by gender and by education (university, polytechnic or ITE, other) will reduce skew.
Recruitment. Because vaping is illegal and no sampling frame exists, recruitment will use non-probability methods: anonymous links shared through university and polytechnic student networks, community organisations and social media advertising, with no names or contact details collected.
Instrument. The questionnaire is newly developed for this study. Its constructs follow those used in earlier Singapore work, namely vaping status, perceived harm and social media exposure (Ng et al., 2024; Asharani et al., 2024). It is not a validated scale, so it will be piloted with about 20 young adults and checked for clarity and internal consistency. A condensed extract is in the appendix.
Procedure. Respondents open the link, read the information sheet, confirm consent and eligibility, and complete roughly 10 minutes of questions. Data are analysed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression, with current vaping as the outcome.
Threats to validity
| Threat | Why it matters here | How it is addressed |
|---|---|---|
| Social desirability and under-reporting | Admitting an illegal act invites under-reporting, and Ng et al. (2024) relied on self-report too | Anonymous design, no IP or contact data, neutral wording, assurance that answers cannot identify individuals |
| Selection bias | Self-selected volunteers may differ from the wider population | Quotas, several recruitment channels, and honest reporting of who responded |
| Measurement validity of a new instrument | Unvalidated items may not capture the constructs | Pilot test, expert review of items, reliability checks before analysis |
| Confounding | Smoking and alcohol use relate to vaping (Shahwan et al., 2026) | Measure both and include them as covariates |
Q4 Ethical issues
Risk of self-incrimination. Participants would disclose behaviour that is an offence (HSA, n.d.). The study will collect no names, contact details or IP addresses, will state clearly in the information sheet what is and is not recorded, and will allow people to skip any question. Researchers should not assume that data are legally privileged, so approval from the institutional review board should confirm how the data would be handled if requested. Clinicians already report that patients hide vaping because of such fears (van der Eijk et al., 2026).
Age, consent and personal data. Eligibility starts at 18, so no minors are recruited and nobody needs parental consent. Consent will be explicit and voluntary, with the right to withdraw before submission. Any personal data would be subject to the consent and purpose limitation obligations of the Personal Data Protection Act (Personal Data Protection Commission [PDPC], 2022), so data will be used only for the stated purpose, stored securely and reported in aggregate.
Distress and harm. Questions about dependence or Kpod use may upset some respondents. The final screen will list cessation and counselling services, and the instrument will avoid graphic or judgemental wording.
Q5 Limitations
Cross-sectional design. Data are collected once, so the study can show association but not whether perceptions cause vaping or follow it. No amount of careful analysis within this study can establish direction. Longitudinal follow-up would be needed.
Non-probability sampling. Without a sampling frame, results cannot be generalised to all young adults, and prevalence estimates will be indicative only. Quotas reduce, but cannot remove, this limit.
Self-report of an illegal behaviour. Anonymity lowers but does not eliminate under-reporting, and responses on Kpod use in particular may be inaccurate. Biological verification is neither ethical nor practical in this design.
Appendix A (condensed extract): questionnaire
Origin: newly developed for this study; construct coverage informed by Ng et al. (2024). Response options shown in brackets.
- Have you ever used an e-cigarette or vape? (Never / Once or twice / In the past 30 days / Regularly)
- How harmful do you think vaping is to a person’s health? (0 = not harmful, 10 = extremely harmful)
- How likely is it that a person your age caught vaping would be penalised? (Very unlikely to Very likely)
- In the last 6 months, how often have you seen vaping-related posts on social media? (Never to Daily)
- Before today, had you heard of “Kpods”? (Yes / No / Not sure)
How to adapt this extract
- Choose your own vaping issue and research question; do not reuse this one.
- Select your own five or more Singapore journal articles, and read each one rather than relying on abstracts.
- Decide whether your design should be qualitative, quantitative or mixed, and give at least two reasons of your own.
- Rebuild the sample size reasoning and the appendix from your own instrument and state its origin accurately.
- Check the 3,000-word limit, the word count statement and APA 7th formatting before you submit.
For one-to-one guidance on structure and referencing, see our SUSS assignment help page or the ECA assignment help page.
References
Ahmad, I. S., & Lim, R. B. T. (2026). Vaping among young adults in Singapore: A qualitative study of motivations, challenges and antivaping intervention perceptions. Tobacco Control, 35(2), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-059030
Asharani, P. V., Seet, V. A. L., Devi, F., Wang, P., Roystonn, K., & Subramaniam, M. (2024). Electronic nicotine delivery systems: Prevalence and perception of risk/harm in individuals with mental illness. Singapore Medical Journal, 65(1), 51–56. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2022091
Health Sciences Authority. (n.d.). Vaping enforcement in Singapore. https://www.hsa.gov.sg/consumer-safety/articles/vaping-enforcement-in-singapore
Ministry of Health Singapore. (2025, August 28). Opening remarks by Mr Ong Ye Kung, Minister for Health, at the press conference on whole-of-government efforts to tackle vapes. https://www.moh.gov.sg/newsroom/opening-remarks-by-mr-ong-ye-kung–minister-for-health–at-the-press-conference-on-whole-of-government-efforts-to-tackle-vapes/
Ng, L., Ng, X. Y., & van der Eijk, Y. (2024). Vaping in a heavily regulated setting: Cross-sectional survey of e-cigarette use, perceptions and social media exposure. Tobacco Control, 33(e1), e11–e17. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2022-057805
Personal Data Protection Commission. (2022). Advisory guidelines on key concepts in the Personal Data Protection Act. https://pdpc.gov.sg/Guidelines-and-Consultation/2020/03/Advisory-Guidelines-on-Key-Concepts-in-the-Personal-Data-Protection-Act
Shahwan, S., Tan, B. C. W., Vaingankar, J. A., Chang, S. S. H., Samari, E., Tan, B. Y. W., Tang, C. Y. Z., Lee, Y. P., Verma, S., . . . Subramaniam, M. (2026). The associations between vaping, cigarette smoking and hazardous alcohol use: Findings from a nationwide youth mental health study in Singapore. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 24(5), 3678–3693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-025-01571-6
Tan, G. P. P., Tan, X. Z., & van der Eijk, Y. (2024). “If I could try it, I’d try it”: Qualitative study of the illegal vaping culture in Singapore. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 20, Article 100556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2024.100556
van der Eijk, Y., Kwok, W. Y., & Tan, G. P. P. (2026). How do clinicians address vaping in an illegal context? A qualitative Singapore study. Tobacco Control, 35(3), 351–357. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2024-058996
