Suppr超能文献

电子烟相对于传统香烟的感知危害:美国和越南不同衡量标准之间的比较。

Perceived harm of e-cigarettes relative to conventional cigarettes: Comparison among different measures in the US and Vietnam.

作者信息

Tran Thi Phuong Thao, Tran Thi Tuyet Hanh, Phan Thi Hai, Hoang Van Minh, Popova Lucy

机构信息

Georgia State University School of Public Health, GA, United States; Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam.

出版信息

Addict Behav. 2025 Mar;162:108230. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108230. Epub 2024 Dec 12.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Evidence shows the inconsistencies in perceived harm of e-cigarettes between direct (single question) and indirect (assessing perceived harm separately by a single question and subtracting their score) measures. While the validity of both measures was tested by assessing their association with criterion variables (i.e., ever-trying e-cigarettes), further validation research is needed given existing limitations.

METHODS

We analyzed data from Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study Wave 6 in the US and a provincial version of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2020 in Vietnam. Comparative harm of cigarettes and e-cigarettes was measured using direct and indirect method. A new criterion validity measure - "I use e-cigarettes because they might be less harmful to me than smoking cigarettes" - was introduced.

RESULTS

In the general US population, a higher proportion of participants perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes when assessed using the indirect method compared to the direct method (31.56% vs. 13.70%). Additionally, although many US e-cigarette users indicated that they used e-cigarettes because they might be less harmful than cigarettes, among these people only 61.43% reported e-cigarettes to be less harmful when using the direct method but this proportion was higher (67.28%) for the indirect method. In Vietnam, this proportion was higher, at 76.68% using the direct method.

CONCLUSION

This study emphasizes the significance of including and reporting multiple measures within a single survey to achieve a comprehensive understanding of perceived harm.

摘要

引言

有证据表明,在直接(单一问题)和间接(通过单一问题分别评估感知危害并减去其得分)测量方法中,对电子烟感知危害的评估存在不一致性。虽然通过评估这两种测量方法与标准变量(即是否曾经尝试过电子烟)的关联来检验了它们的有效性,但鉴于现有局限性,仍需要进一步的验证研究。

方法

我们分析了美国烟草与健康人口评估第6波以及越南2020年全球成人烟草调查省级版本的数据。使用直接和间接方法测量香烟和电子烟的相对危害。引入了一种新的标准效度测量方法——“我使用电子烟是因为它们可能比吸烟对我危害更小”。

结果

在美国普通人群中,与直接方法相比,使用间接方法评估时,更高比例的参与者认为电子烟比香烟危害更小(31.56%对13.70%)。此外,尽管许多美国电子烟使用者表示他们使用电子烟是因为它们可能比香烟危害更小,但在这些人中,使用直接方法时只有61.43%的人报告电子烟危害更小,但使用间接方法时这一比例更高(67.28%)。在越南,这一比例更高,直接方法下为76.68%。

结论

本研究强调了在单一调查中纳入并报告多种测量方法以全面了解感知危害的重要性。

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