4.5 Article

Racial/ethnic differences in electronic cigarette knowledge, social norms, and risk perceptions among current and former smokers

期刊

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
卷 67, 期 -, 页码 86-91

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.12.013

关键词

E-cigarette; Smoking; Risk perceptions; Knowledge; Race/ethnicity

资金

  1. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (SCCC) at the University of Miami

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychosocial factors that may affect electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) initiation or maintenance among racial/ethnic minorities are not well-understood. This study examined racial/ethnic differences in e-cigarette knowledge, risk perceptions, and social norms among current and former smokers. Individuals with a tobacco smoking history and an awareness of e-cigarettes (N = 285) were recruited from the community from June to August 2014. Telephone-administered surveys assessed demographics, smoking status, and e-cigarette knowledge, risk perceptions, and normative beliefs. Analyses of covariance and multinomial logistic regression tested associations by race/ethnicity. Controlling for sociodemographics and smoking status, White participants scored significantly higher on e-cigarette knowledge, compared to both Hispanics and African Americans/Blacks. Knowledge was lower among African Americans/Blacks compared to Hispanics. Compared to both Whites and Hispanics, African American/Black participants held lower perceptions regarding e-cigarette health risks and were less likely to view e-cigarettes as addictive. Normative beliefs did not differ by race/ethnicity. In conclusion, e-cigarette knowledge, health risk perceptions, and perceived addictiveness differed by race/ethnicity. The variation in e-cigarette knowledge and beliefs among smokers and former smokers has implications for use, and potentially, dual use. Understanding these relationships in unrepresented populations can inform future research and practice. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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