4.6 Article

Gateway effects and electronic cigarettes

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 113, 期 10, 页码 1776-1783

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/add.13924

关键词

E-cigarette; electronic cigarette; gateway effect; gateway theory; nicotine; smoking; tobacco use disorder

资金

  1. University of Geneva

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background E-cigarettes are alleged to be a gateway to cigarette smoking in non-smokers. This study examines whether the gateway theory has value, whether the criteria to establish causality have been met and what type of evidence is required to test this theory. Analysis Experiments are impractical, and we may not be able to test properly the gateway effects via observational studies that simply adjust for confounders. Multivariate models cannot eliminate all the variance in propensity to smoke captured by the variable vaping' because of the proximity of these two behaviours. It may be difficult to prove that vaping precedes smoking when product use co-occurs and when, in fact, smoking usually precedes vaping. The gateway theory is not compatible with either (1) the decrease in smoking prevalence observed in adolescents in countries where vaping increased or (2) an increase in smoking among teenagers after age restrictions were imposed on e-cigarette purchases. A spurious gateway effect can be produced artificially by mathematical models in which a propensity to use substances is correlated with opportunities to use substances. Finally, neither nicotine medications nor smokeless tobacco produce gateway effects. Available data are compatible with a common liability model in which people who are liable to use nicotine are more likely to use both e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Conclusions Despite its weaknesses and scant empirical support, the gateway theory of smoking initiation has had enormous political influence. Policies based on this theory will not have the intended effects if the association between vaping and smoking is explained by common liabilities.

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