4.3 Article

A Combination of Factors Related to Smoking Behavior, Attractive Product Characteristics, and Socio-Cognitive Factors are Important to Distinguish a Dual User from an Exclusive E-Cigarette User

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16214191

关键词

e-cigarettes; dual use; public health; machine learning; random forest; smoking behavior; attractiveness; socio-cognitive factors

资金

  1. Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) [S132006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although total cessation of nicotine and tobacco products would be most beneficial to improve public health, exclusive e-cigarette use has potential health benefits for smokers compared to cigarette smoking. This study investigated differences between dual users and exclusive e-cigarette users provide information to optimize health communication about smoking and vaping. A cross-sectional survey (n = 116) among 80 current, adult dual users and 36 current, adult-exclusive e-cigarette users was conducted in the Netherlands. The questionnaire assessed four clusters of factors: (1) Past and current smoking and vaping behavior, (2) product characteristics used, (3) attractiveness and reasons related to cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and (4) socio-cognitive factors regarding smoking, vaping, and not smoking or vaping. We used random forest-a machine learning algorithm-to identify distinguishing features between dual users and e-cigarette users. We are able to discern a dual user from an exclusive e-cigarette user with 86.2% accuracy based on seven factors: Social ties with other smokers, quantity of tobacco cigarettes smoked in the past (e-cigarette users) or currently (dual users), self-efficacy to not vape and smoke, unattractiveness of cigarettes, attitude towards e-cigarettes, barriers: accessibility of e-cigarettes, and intention to quit vaping (A). This combination of features provides information on how to improve health communication about smoking and vaping.

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

4.3
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