4.7 Article

The social patterning of electronic nicotin'e delivery system use among US adults

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 27-31

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.08.038

关键词

ENDS; E-cigarettes; Vaping; Socioeconomic status; Social patterning; A-TRAC

资金

  1. American Heart Association [P50HL120163, 15SFDRN26140001]
  2. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) [P60MD002249, U54MD008176]
  3. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) [1R01HL116446]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is little research examining the social patterning of electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) use. This study investigated the association between socioeconomic status (SES) (education, income, and employment status) and current and former ENDS use. Data were collected from 2561 participants from the American Heart Association Tobacco Regulatory and Addiction Center (A-TRAC) online survey. Participants were 18-64 years old and reported demographic, SES, and ENDS use. Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios (PR 95% confidence interval-CI) of participants' current and former (vs. never) ENDS use. Models were adjusted for age, sex, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, marital status, and reasons for ENDS use. In the unadjusted analysis, ENDS use was primarily patterned by education and employment status. College educated persons (vs. those with less than a high school diploma) had a 37% greater prevalence of current ENDS use (PR 1.37, 95% CI 1.20-1.55), and a 16% greater prevalence of former ENDS use (PR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06-1.28) in the fully-adjusted model. Persons with household incomes above $90 K (vs. less than $20,000) had a greater prevalence of current (PR 1.30, 95% CI 1.19-1.41) and former (PR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30) ENDS use. Those who were employed (vs. not employed) had a 13% greater prevalence of current ENDS use (PR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19) after full adjustment. Higher SES (vs. lower SES) persons were more likely to use ENDS.

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

4.7
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