Suppr超能文献

美国家长在家中吸烟和蒸气吸烟政策:人口评估烟草与健康(PATH)研究,第 3 波结果。

Home smoking and vaping policies among US adults: results from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study, wave 3.

机构信息

Department of Clinical & Translational Research, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.

Department of Clinical & Translational Research, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.

出版信息

Prev Med. 2020 Oct;139:106215. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106215. Epub 2020 Jul 18.

Abstract

We examined the prevalence of home smoking and vaping restrictions among US adults, and compared home policy differences for smoking and vaping among vapers, smokers, and dual users. Secondary data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study Wave 3 (2015-2016) with 28,148 adults were analyzed using weighted multivariable logistic regression models that account for complex sampling design to compare differences in home policies among non-users, vapers only, smokers only, and dual users. Compared to never-users, current vapers who were ex-smokers and dual users were more likely to allow home vaping (aOR = 11.06, 95% CI: 8.04-15.21; aOR = 6.44, 95% CI: 5.01-8.28) and smoking (aOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.19-2.22; aOR = 3.58, 95% CI: 2.88-4.45). Current smokers were more likely to allow vaping (aOR = 3.53, 95% CI: 3.06-4.06) and smoking (aOR = 4.27, 95% CI: 3.73-4.89) inside the home than never-users. Current vapers who never smoked were more likely to allow vaping inside the home than never-users (aOR = 2.45, 95% CI: 1.53-3.93). Vapers reported much lower rates of vape-free home policies relative to both their smoke-free home policies and to vape-free home policies among smokers. Vapers may be using e-cigarettes in hopes of harm reduction, but interpreting "harm reduction" as safe, thus exposing non-users in their homes to second- and thirdhand aerosols. This underscores the need to healthcare providers to extend intervention with vapers to include implementing vape-free home policies.

摘要

我们调查了美国成年人中家庭吸烟和蒸气吸烟限制的流行情况,并比较了蒸气烟使用者、吸烟者和双重使用者的家庭吸烟和蒸气吸烟政策差异。使用加权多变量逻辑回归模型对来自人口评估烟草和健康 (PATH) 研究波 3(2015-2016 年)的 28148 名成年人的二次数据进行了分析,这些模型考虑了复杂的抽样设计,以比较非使用者、仅蒸气烟使用者、仅吸烟者和双重使用者之间的家庭政策差异。与从不使用者相比,以前吸烟但现在是蒸气烟使用者和双重使用者的当前蒸气烟使用者更有可能允许在家中蒸气吸烟(调整后的优势比[aOR] = 11.06,95%置信区间[CI]:8.04-15.21;aOR = 6.44,95%CI:5.01-8.28)和吸烟(aOR = 1.62,95%CI:1.19-2.22;aOR = 3.58,95%CI:2.88-4.45)。当前吸烟者比从不使用者更有可能允许在家中蒸气吸烟(aOR = 3.53,95%CI:3.06-4.06)和吸烟(aOR = 4.27,95%CI:3.73-4.89)。从未吸烟的当前蒸气烟使用者比从不使用者更有可能允许在家中蒸气吸烟(aOR = 2.45,95%CI:1.53-3.93)。与他们的无烟家庭政策和吸烟者的无烟家庭政策相比,从未吸烟的蒸气烟使用者报告的蒸气限制家庭政策的比例要低得多。蒸气烟使用者可能希望通过减少伤害来使用电子烟,但将“减少伤害”解释为安全,从而使家中的非使用者暴露于二手和三手气溶胶中。这突显了医疗保健提供者的需求,即通过将蒸气烟使用者的干预措施扩展到实施无烟家庭政策来满足这一需求。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

3
Risk Factors for E-Cigarette Ban Relaxation in Homes With Adolescents.家庭中青少年存在使电子烟禁令放宽的风险因素。
J Adolesc Health. 2024 Nov;75(5):766-771. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.05.006. Epub 2024 Jul 14.
4
Household vaping bans and youth e-cigarette use.家庭雾化禁令与青少年电子烟使用
Addiction. 2024 Jan;119(1):74-83. doi: 10.1111/add.16335. Epub 2023 Sep 15.

本文引用的文献

2
Hospitalizations and Deaths Associated with EVALI.因 EVALI 而住院和死亡的情况。
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 23;382(17):1589-1598. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915314.
5
The E-Cigarette Debate: What Counts as Evidence?电子烟辩论:什么才算证据?
Am J Public Health. 2019 Jul;109(7):1000-1006. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305107. Epub 2019 May 16.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验