4.1 Article

Social connections influencing e-cigarette use and intentions in Australia: a survey

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADDICTIVE DISEASES
卷 40, 期 3, 页码 357-365

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10550887.2021.2003145

关键词

E-cigarette; vaping; smoking; intention; social acceptability; Australia

资金

  1. International Research Training Program (iRTP) Scholarship [2017684]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study findings suggest that higher social acceptability of e-cigarettes in workplaces or educational settings is associated with increased likelihood of use or intention to use among individuals.
Background: Social factors play a role in e-cigarette uptake, but Australian evidence is limited. This study evaluated associations between social factors and e-cigarette intention and use. Methods: Australian participants surveyed between March 2019 and July 2019 using a cross-sectional survey design, measuring e-cigarette intentions and use, and factors including smoking status and social acceptability. Results: Of 243 respondents, 185 were included in the final analysis, measuring e-cigarette intention and use, and factors including smoking status and social acceptability. Of 185 participants, daily, occasional, and ex-smokers (123 participants) were more likely to have used e-cigarettes (OR = 9.33; 95% CI 4.63-18.80) or intend to use e-cigarettes (OR = 4.86; 95% CI 2.32-10.21), relative to nonsmokers (62 participants). Participants reporting acceptability among people they study or work with (70 participants) were more likely to have used e-cigarettes relative to the reference group (OR = 16.76; 95% CI 3.70-75.83; p = 0.001) and were more likely report intending to use e-cigarettes relative to the reference group (OR = 3.40; 95%CI 1.58-7.30; p = 0.002). Conclusions: With caveats related to the survey participant composition, the results suggest that places of work or study may be an appropriate place to consider interventions aimed at reducing e-cigarette uptake among nonsmokers.

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

4.1
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