比较电子烟专属用户和传统卷烟吸烟者的自我健康评价:2019 年英格兰健康调查分析。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Internal and Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1007/s11739-024-03817-y
Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Duaa Abdullah Bafail
{"title":"比较电子烟专属用户和传统卷烟吸烟者的自我健康评价:2019 年英格兰健康调查分析。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

与传统卷烟相比,使用电子烟对健康的影响继续引起公众对健康的极大关注。本研究利用《2019 年英格兰健康调查》中的数据,研究了专门使用电子烟者与专门吸食传统香烟者的自我健康评价(SRH)结果。在 10,299 名参与者的初始样本中,研究重点关注了 8204 名成年人,其中不包括 0-15 岁的儿童。在排除双重使用者、从未使用者、前使用者、未回复者以及其他烟草产品(如烟斗和雪茄)使用者后,进一步细化为尼古丁产品的独家使用者,最终得出 274 名电子烟使用者和 1017 名卷烟吸烟者。性健康和生殖健康是根据参与者对一个问题的回答得出的,该问题询问他们如何评价自己的总体健康状况,有五个可能的选项:"非常好"、"好"、"一般"、"差 "和 "非常差"。在本研究中,这些回答被归纳为两个类别:"健康状况良好"(包括 "很好 "和 "好")和 "健康状况差"(包括 "一般"、"差 "和 "很差")。因此,834 名参与者被归类为 "健康状况良好",457 名参与者被归类为 "健康状况较差"。经调整年龄、性别、种族、居住地、教育程度、体重指数、饮酒情况、开始吸烟年龄、身体或精神健康状况以及全科医生就诊频率等因素后,二元逻辑回归结果显示,与只吸食香烟的人相比,只吸食电子烟的人更有可能报告健康状况良好,几率比(OR)为 1.59(95% CI:1.10 - 2.32,p = 0.014)。作为一项敏感性分析,我们使用原有的五个性健康和生殖健康类别建立了一个广义有序逻辑回归模型。调整后的模型证实了一致的结果,在所有 SRH 结果中,专吸电子烟者报告健康状况更好的几率更高(OR = 1.40,95% CI:1.08-1.82,p = 0.011)。这些研究结果表明,与传统卷烟吸食者相比,电子烟专属吸食者对自身健康的看法更为积极,这为围绕减害策略的讨论提供了有益的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional cigarette smokers: an analysis of the Health Survey for England 2019.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Chronic treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors is associated with ICU admission and disease severity in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis: a propensity score-matched cohort study. Out-of-hospital onset versus in-hospital onset for clinical outcomes in spontaneous intramuscular hematoma diagnosed by computed tomography: a retrospective cohort study. Comparing self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional cigarette smokers: an analysis of the Health Survey for England 2019. Final diagnoses and mortality rates in ambulance patients administered nebulized β2-agonists bronchodilators. Efficacy of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy in cancer patients with concurrent acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a retrospective propensity score study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1