Suppr超能文献

电子烟和其他尼古丁产品在英国样本中的危害认知。

Harm perceptions of e-cigarettes and other nicotine products in a UK sample.

机构信息

Addictions Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, UK.

出版信息

Addiction. 2019 May;114(5):879-888. doi: 10.1111/add.14502. Epub 2019 Jan 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

E-cigarettes (EC) and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) are less harmful than smoking, but misperceptions of relative harm are common. Aims were to (1) assess nicotine knowledge and perceptions of: harm of EC and NRT relative to smoking, addictiveness of EC relative to smoking, and change in harm to user if smoking replaced with EC; (2) define associations of these perceptions with respondent characteristics including nicotine knowledge; and (3) explore perceived main harms of EC and whether these differ by vaping status.

DESIGN

Analyses were: (1) frequencies; (2) logistic regressions of perceptions of relative harm, addictiveness and change in harm onto demographics, smoking and vaping status and nicotine knowledge (attributing cancer or health risks of smoking to nicotine); and (3) frequencies and χ statistics.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Participants were smokers and recent ex-smokers from one wave (September 2017) of a longitudinal online survey in the United Kingdom (n = 1720).

MEASUREMENTS

Demographics included gender, age, smoking status, vaping status and income. Survey questions collected data on nicotine knowledge and harm perceptions of different products; the relative harm perceptions of NRT, EC and tobacco cigarettes; and perceived main harms of EC.

FINDINGS

Relative to smoking, 57.3% perceived EC and 63.4% NRT to be less harmful; 25.4% perceived EC to be less addictive; and 32.2% thought replacing smoking with EC reduced health harms a great deal. Participants were less likely to endorse these beliefs if they had never vaped, and participants who had inaccurate nicotine knowledge were less likely to endorse all these beliefs apart from the addictiveness of EC. The main concerns about EC were a lack of research (48.3%), regulation or quality control (37.8%) and harmfulness of chemicals (41.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Large proportions of UK smokers and ex-smokers overestimate the relative harmfulness of e-cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy compared with smoking; misattributing smoking harms to nicotine is associated with increased misperceptions.

摘要

背景和目的

电子烟(EC)和尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)的危害小于吸烟,但对相对危害的误解很常见。目的是:(1)评估尼古丁知识和对以下方面的看法:与吸烟相比,EC 和 NRT 的危害,与吸烟相比,EC 的成瘾性,以及用 EC 替代吸烟对使用者危害的变化;(2)确定这些看法与受访者特征(包括尼古丁知识)的关联;(3)探讨对 EC 的主要危害的看法,以及这些看法是否因吸烟状况而异。

设计

分析方法为:(1)频率;(2)相对危害、成瘾性和危害变化的感知的逻辑回归到人口统计学、吸烟和蒸气状态和尼古丁知识(归因于吸烟的癌症或健康风险尼古丁);(3)频率和 χ 统计。

设置和参与者

参与者为来自英国一项纵向在线调查的一个波次(2017 年 9 月)的吸烟者和近期戒烟者(n=1720)。

测量

人口统计学资料包括性别、年龄、吸烟状况、蒸气状态和收入。调查问题收集了不同产品的尼古丁知识和危害认知数据;NRT、EC 和香烟相对危害的看法;以及对 EC 的主要危害的看法。

结果

与吸烟相比,57.3%的人认为 EC 和 63.4%的 NRT 危害较小;25.4%的人认为 EC 的成瘾性较小;32.2%的人认为用 EC 代替吸烟会大大降低健康危害。如果参与者从未吸过烟,他们不太可能认可这些信念,如果参与者的尼古丁知识不准确,他们不太可能认可除 EC 的成瘾性之外的所有这些信念。对 EC 的主要担忧是缺乏研究(48.3%)、监管或质量控制(37.8%)以及对化学物质的危害(41.6%)。

结论

英国吸烟者和戒烟者中有很大比例的人高估了电子烟和尼古丁替代疗法与吸烟相比的相对危害性;将吸烟的危害归因于尼古丁与增加的误解有关。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

8
Do respiratory physicians not care about people who smoke?呼吸科医生不关心吸烟人群吗?
Clin Med (Lond). 2023 Sep;23(5):531-532. doi: 10.7861/clinmed.2023-0270.

本文引用的文献

1
Electronic cigarette use in young people in Great Britain 2015-2016.2015 - 2016年英国年轻人使用电子烟的情况
Public Health. 2017 Aug;149:45-48. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.03.019. Epub 2017 May 19.
2
Changing Perceptions of Harm of E-Cigarettes Among U.S. Adults, 2012-2015.2012 - 2015年美国成年人对电子烟危害认知的变化
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Mar;52(3):331-338. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.039. Epub 2016 Oct 26.
4
Trends in E-Cigarette Awareness and Perceived Harmfulness in the U.S.美国电子烟认知和感知危害的趋势
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Mar;52(3):339-346. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.10.017. Epub 2016 Nov 24.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验