4.2 Article

E-cigarette use among young adults in Poland: Prevalence and characteristics of e-cigarette users

期刊

ADVANCES IN MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 65, 期 2, 页码 437-441

出版社

ELSEVIER URBAN & PARTNER SP Z O O
DOI: 10.1016/j.advms.2020.09.002

关键词

Electronic cigarettes; E-cigarettes; Poland; Smoking; Prevalence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is one of the most popular alternatives to conventional cigarette smoking. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of cigarette and e-cigarette use among university students from Poland, with particular emphasis on ever and current cigarette and e-cigarette use as well as smoking initiation age. Patients and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between 2017 and 2018 in a group of university students in 5 academic centers in Poland. The questionnaire addressed 46 questions about personal attitudes toward cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use. Results: Data were collected from 7324 participants (67.3% females, aged 21.9 +/- 2.1 years), with an overall response rate of 70.1%. Among participants, 71.2% had ever smoked a cigarette, and almost half of the respondents (45%) declared ever use of an e-cigarette. The mean age of first use of a cigarette was significantly lower (16.5 +/- 2.5 y-old) than of an e-cigarette (18.6 +/- 2.2 y-old; p < 0.001). Exclusive cigarette smoking was declared by 12.9%, 1.3% were e-cigarette users and 1.5% were dual users. Those in the medical field were less likely to try e-cigarettes (odds ratio, OR = 0.73) or to currently smoke conventional cigarettes (OR = 0.82). Older participants were more likely to have ever smoked conventional cigarettes (OR = 1.06), but less likely to have ever used e-cigarettes (OR = 0.88). Conclusions: In this study, we found a high proportion of young adults who have tried e-cigarettes with both regional and demographic differences. The education profile influences cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use behaviors.

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

4.2
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