4.6 Article

Association between Electronic Cigarette Use and Asthma among High School Students in South Korea

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151022

关键词

-

资金

  1. 2nd semester Hanyang Women's University Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Little is known about health outcomes related to electronic cigarette (EC) use, despite its growing popularity. The aim of this study is to investigate the association between EC use and asthma. Methods The study design is a cross-sectional study. A total of 35,904 high school students were included as the final study population. The presence of asthma was based on a student's self-reported doctor diagnosis of asthma in the past 12 months. Results Prevalence rates of asthmatics in 'current EC users' (n = 2,513), 'former EC users' (n = 2,078), and 'never EC users' (n = 31,313), were 3.9% (n = 98), 2.2% (n = 46) and 1.7% (n = 530), respectively. Comparing 'current EC' users with 'never EC' users, the unadjusted OR for asthma was 2.36 (95% CI: 1.89-2.94). In order to control for the effect of conventional cigarette (CC) smoking, after stratifying the subjects by the three CC smoking categories (never CC, former CC, and current CC), within the 'never CC' category, the unadjusted OR for asthma for 'current EC' users was 3.41 (95% CI: 1.79-6.49), and the adjusted OR was 2.74 (95% CI: 1.30-5.78). Severe asthma was reflected by the number of days absent from school due to asthma symptoms; current EC users had the highest adjusted OR for severe asthma compared to 'never EC' users. Conclusions When compared to a reference population of high school students in South Korea, EC users have an increased association with asthma and are more likely to have had days absent from school due to severe asthma symptoms. In conclusion, the results indicate that EC use may be a risk factor for asthma. The results may be useful in developing a scientific basis for the evaluation of a potential health hazard by EC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据