{"title":"Comparing self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional cigarette smokers: an analysis of the Health Survey for England 2019.","authors":"Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Duaa Abdullah Bafail","doi":"10.1007/s11739-024-03817-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The health implications of e-cigarette use compared to traditional cigarette smoking continue to attract significant public health interest. This study examines self-rated health (SRH) outcomes among exclusive e-cigarette users versus exclusive traditional cigarette smokers, using data from the Health Survey for England 2019. From an initial sample of 10,299 participants, the study focused on 8204 adults, excluding those aged 0-15. Further refinement to exclusive nicotine product users led to 274 e-cigarette users and 1017 cigarette smokers, after excluding dual users, never users, ex-users, non-responders, and users of other tobacco products such as pipes and cigars. SRH was derived from participants' responses to a question asking how they rated their general health, with five possible options: \"very good\", \"good\", \"fair\", \"bad\", and \"very bad\". For the purposes of this study, these responses were collapsed into two categories: \"Good Health\" (combining \"very good\" and \"good\") and \"Poor Health\" (combining \"fair\", \"bad\", and \"very bad\"). Consequently, 834 participants were classified as reporting good health, while 457 reported poor health. Binary logistic regression, adjusted for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, residence, education, body mass index, alcohol use, age started smoking, physical or mental health conditions, and frequency of GP visits, revealed that exclusive e-cigarette users were significantly more likely to report good health compared to exclusive cigarette smokers, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.10 - 2.32, p = 0.014). As a sensitivity analysis, a generalized ordered logistic regression model was performed using the original five SRH categories. The adjusted model confirmed consistent results, with exclusive e-cigarette users showing higher odds of reporting better health across the full range of SRH outcomes (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82, p = 0.011). These findings suggest that exclusive e-cigarette users perceive their health more positively than traditional cigarette smokers, contributing useful insights to the discussions around harm reduction strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-024-03817-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The health implications of e-cigarette use compared to traditional cigarette smoking continue to attract significant public health interest. This study examines self-rated health (SRH) outcomes among exclusive e-cigarette users versus exclusive traditional cigarette smokers, using data from the Health Survey for England 2019. From an initial sample of 10,299 participants, the study focused on 8204 adults, excluding those aged 0-15. Further refinement to exclusive nicotine product users led to 274 e-cigarette users and 1017 cigarette smokers, after excluding dual users, never users, ex-users, non-responders, and users of other tobacco products such as pipes and cigars. SRH was derived from participants' responses to a question asking how they rated their general health, with five possible options: "very good", "good", "fair", "bad", and "very bad". For the purposes of this study, these responses were collapsed into two categories: "Good Health" (combining "very good" and "good") and "Poor Health" (combining "fair", "bad", and "very bad"). Consequently, 834 participants were classified as reporting good health, while 457 reported poor health. Binary logistic regression, adjusted for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, residence, education, body mass index, alcohol use, age started smoking, physical or mental health conditions, and frequency of GP visits, revealed that exclusive e-cigarette users were significantly more likely to report good health compared to exclusive cigarette smokers, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.10 - 2.32, p = 0.014). As a sensitivity analysis, a generalized ordered logistic regression model was performed using the original five SRH categories. The adjusted model confirmed consistent results, with exclusive e-cigarette users showing higher odds of reporting better health across the full range of SRH outcomes (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82, p = 0.011). These findings suggest that exclusive e-cigarette users perceive their health more positively than traditional cigarette smokers, contributing useful insights to the discussions around harm reduction strategies.
期刊介绍:
Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.