烟草/尼古丁产品的危害认知和儿童接触:非使用者、纯香烟使用者和纯电子香烟使用者之间的差异

IF 2.1 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Tobacco Use Insights Pub Date : 2021-03-30 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1179173X21998362
Alayna P Tackett, Samantha W Wallace, Caitlin E Smith, Elise Turner, David A Fedele, Irina Stepanov, William V Lechner, Jessica J Hale, Theodore L Wagener
{"title":"烟草/尼古丁产品的危害认知和儿童接触:非使用者、纯香烟使用者和纯电子香烟使用者之间的差异","authors":"Alayna P Tackett,&nbsp;Samantha W Wallace,&nbsp;Caitlin E Smith,&nbsp;Elise Turner,&nbsp;David A Fedele,&nbsp;Irina Stepanov,&nbsp;William V Lechner,&nbsp;Jessica J Hale,&nbsp;Theodore L Wagener","doi":"10.1177/1179173X21998362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined caregiver perception of harm and child secondhand exposure to nicotine in a sample of e-cigarette-exclusive, cigarette-exclusive, and non-tobacco/nicotine users (non-users).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cigarette-exclusive (n = 19), e-cigarette-exclusive (n = 12), and non-users (n = 20) and their children (N = 51, <i>M<sub>age</sub></i>  = 10.47) completed self-report questionnaires about perceptions of harm, child secondhand exposure, and provided urine to assess child nicotine exposure (cotinine). ANOVAs examined differences between caregiver use status on tobacco harm perceptions and child cotinine levels. Independent samples <i>t</i>-test compared differences in caregiver-reported child secondhand exposure in the home and car.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 3 caregiver groups rated cigarettes as highly harmful (<i>P</i> = .14), but e-cigarette users rated all 3 types of e-cigarette products (Cartridge-based: <i>P</i> < .001; Tank: <i>P</i> < .001; Box Mod: <i>P</i> < .001) as less harmful than cigarette users and non-users. Caregivers from the e-cigarette user group reported greater child secondhand exposure than caregivers using cigarettes (past 7-day in-home exposure (<i>P</i> = .03); past 7-day exposure in-home + in-car exposure (<i>P</i> = .02); in-home exposure by caregivers and other people exposure (<i>P</i> = .02)). Children from the cigarette user group had significantly higher levels of cotinine (<i>M</i> = 16.6, SD = 21.7) compared to children from the Non-User group (<i>M</i> = .43, SD = .95; <i>P</i> = .001), but no significant difference when compared to children from the E-Cigarette User group (<i>M</i> = 6.5, SD = 13.5).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In this sample, caregivers who used e-cigarettes perceived them as less harmful, reported using them more frequently at home and in the car, even when their children were present, compared to cigarette users. As a result, children appear to be exposed to nicotine at levels similar to children living with cigarette users. Future caregiver prevention and intervention efforts should target education around the potential harms of secondhand e-cigarette aerosol to children.</p>","PeriodicalId":43361,"journal":{"name":"Tobacco Use Insights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179173X21998362","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users.\",\"authors\":\"Alayna P Tackett,&nbsp;Samantha W Wallace,&nbsp;Caitlin E Smith,&nbsp;Elise Turner,&nbsp;David A Fedele,&nbsp;Irina Stepanov,&nbsp;William V Lechner,&nbsp;Jessica J Hale,&nbsp;Theodore L Wagener\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1179173X21998362\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study examined caregiver perception of harm and child secondhand exposure to nicotine in a sample of e-cigarette-exclusive, cigarette-exclusive, and non-tobacco/nicotine users (non-users).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cigarette-exclusive (n = 19), e-cigarette-exclusive (n = 12), and non-users (n = 20) and their children (N = 51, <i>M<sub>age</sub></i>  = 10.47) completed self-report questionnaires about perceptions of harm, child secondhand exposure, and provided urine to assess child nicotine exposure (cotinine). ANOVAs examined differences between caregiver use status on tobacco harm perceptions and child cotinine levels. Independent samples <i>t</i>-test compared differences in caregiver-reported child secondhand exposure in the home and car.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 3 caregiver groups rated cigarettes as highly harmful (<i>P</i> = .14), but e-cigarette users rated all 3 types of e-cigarette products (Cartridge-based: <i>P</i> < .001; Tank: <i>P</i> < .001; Box Mod: <i>P</i> < .001) as less harmful than cigarette users and non-users. Caregivers from the e-cigarette user group reported greater child secondhand exposure than caregivers using cigarettes (past 7-day in-home exposure (<i>P</i> = .03); past 7-day exposure in-home + in-car exposure (<i>P</i> = .02); in-home exposure by caregivers and other people exposure (<i>P</i> = .02)). Children from the cigarette user group had significantly higher levels of cotinine (<i>M</i> = 16.6, SD = 21.7) compared to children from the Non-User group (<i>M</i> = .43, SD = .95; <i>P</i> = .001), but no significant difference when compared to children from the E-Cigarette User group (<i>M</i> = 6.5, SD = 13.5).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>In this sample, caregivers who used e-cigarettes perceived them as less harmful, reported using them more frequently at home and in the car, even when their children were present, compared to cigarette users. As a result, children appear to be exposed to nicotine at levels similar to children living with cigarette users. Future caregiver prevention and intervention efforts should target education around the potential harms of secondhand e-cigarette aerosol to children.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43361,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tobacco Use Insights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179173X21998362\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tobacco Use Insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X21998362\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tobacco Use Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X21998362","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:本研究在电子烟、卷烟和非烟草/尼古丁使用者(非使用者)的样本中调查了照顾者对危害的感知和儿童对尼古丁的二手暴露。方法:不吸卷烟(n = 19)、不吸电子烟(n = 12)和不吸电子烟(n = 20)及其子女(n = 51, Mage = 10.47)完成危害认知、儿童二手暴露的自我报告问卷,并提供尿液评估儿童尼古丁暴露(可替宁)。方差分析分析了照顾者使用状况对烟草危害认知和儿童可替宁水平之间的差异。独立样本t检验比较了照顾者报告的儿童在家中和汽车中二手暴露的差异。结果:所有3个护理人员组都将香烟评为高度有害(P = .14),但电子烟使用者对所有3种电子烟产品都进行了评级(基于烟筒的:P P P P = .03);过去7天暴露于室内+车内(P = .02);护理人员在家暴露和其他人暴露(P = .02))。吸烟组儿童的可替宁水平明显高于非吸烟组儿童(M = 16.6, SD = 21.7)。43, sd = .95;P = .001),但与电子烟用户组的儿童相比无显著差异(M = 6.5, SD = 13.5)。讨论:在这个样本中,与卷烟使用者相比,使用电子烟的护理人员认为电子烟的危害较小,他们报告说,即使在孩子在场的情况下,在家和车里使用电子烟的频率也更高。因此,儿童暴露于尼古丁的水平似乎与与吸烟者生活在一起的儿童相似。未来的护理人员预防和干预工作应针对二手电子烟气雾剂对儿童的潜在危害进行教育。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users.

Objective: This study examined caregiver perception of harm and child secondhand exposure to nicotine in a sample of e-cigarette-exclusive, cigarette-exclusive, and non-tobacco/nicotine users (non-users).

Methods: Cigarette-exclusive (n = 19), e-cigarette-exclusive (n = 12), and non-users (n = 20) and their children (N = 51, Mage  = 10.47) completed self-report questionnaires about perceptions of harm, child secondhand exposure, and provided urine to assess child nicotine exposure (cotinine). ANOVAs examined differences between caregiver use status on tobacco harm perceptions and child cotinine levels. Independent samples t-test compared differences in caregiver-reported child secondhand exposure in the home and car.

Results: All 3 caregiver groups rated cigarettes as highly harmful (P = .14), but e-cigarette users rated all 3 types of e-cigarette products (Cartridge-based: P < .001; Tank: P < .001; Box Mod: P < .001) as less harmful than cigarette users and non-users. Caregivers from the e-cigarette user group reported greater child secondhand exposure than caregivers using cigarettes (past 7-day in-home exposure (P = .03); past 7-day exposure in-home + in-car exposure (P = .02); in-home exposure by caregivers and other people exposure (P = .02)). Children from the cigarette user group had significantly higher levels of cotinine (M = 16.6, SD = 21.7) compared to children from the Non-User group (M = .43, SD = .95; P = .001), but no significant difference when compared to children from the E-Cigarette User group (M = 6.5, SD = 13.5).

Discussion: In this sample, caregivers who used e-cigarettes perceived them as less harmful, reported using them more frequently at home and in the car, even when their children were present, compared to cigarette users. As a result, children appear to be exposed to nicotine at levels similar to children living with cigarette users. Future caregiver prevention and intervention efforts should target education around the potential harms of secondhand e-cigarette aerosol to children.

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
Tobacco Use Insights
Tobacco Use Insights PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
4.50%
发文量
32
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Predictors of Successful Tobacco Cessation After Receiving an E-Cigarette Based Smoking Cessation Intervention. Prospective Association Between Tobacco Use and at-Risk Alcohol Consumption Among Swedish Adolescents: Outlining the Influence of Tobacco Product, Frequency of Use and Gender in the LoRDIA Cohort. The Irish Smoking Ban Legislation, Astride the Celtic Tiger, Trail-Blazed a Can-Do Tobacco Control Culture. Cigarette Smoking, Mental Health, Depression, Maryland Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey, 2020. Smoking Status and Premature Death Among Japanese Rural Community-Dwelling Persons.
×
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