让你屏息的新闻:与电子烟有关的肺损伤爆发期间的风险认知。

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2020-06-01 Epub Date: 2020-07-22 DOI:10.1007/s11166-020-09329-2
Dhaval Dave, Daniel Dench, Donald Kenkel, Alan Mathios, Hua Wang
{"title":"让你屏息的新闻:与电子烟有关的肺损伤爆发期间的风险认知。","authors":"Dhaval Dave,&nbsp;Daniel Dench,&nbsp;Donald Kenkel,&nbsp;Alan Mathios,&nbsp;Hua Wang","doi":"10.1007/s11166-020-09329-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We study the impact of new information on people's perceptions of the risks of e-cigarettes. In September 2019 the U.S. experienced an outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, associated lung injuries (EVALI). The EVALI outbreak created an information shock, which was followed by additional new information in a later CDC recommendation. We use data on consumer risk perceptions from two sets of surveys conducted before (HINTS survey data) and during the EVALI outbreak (Google Survey data). The empirical model examines changes in risk perceptions during the early crisis period when the CDC was warning consumers that they should avoid all vaping products and during a later period when the message was refined and focused on a narrower set of illegal vaping products that contain THC (the main psychoactive compound in marijuana). Econometric results suggest that the immediate impact of the first information shock was to significantly increase the fraction of respondents who perceived e-cigarettes as more harmful than smoking. As the outbreak subsided and the CDC recommendation changed to emphasize the role of THC e-cigarette products, e-cigarette risk perceptions were only partially revised downwards. Individuals who had higher risk perceptions showed a weaker response to the first information shock but were more likely to later revise their risk perceptions downwards. We conclude the paper by discussing the public policy issues that stem from having risk perceptions of e-cigarette relative to combustible cigarettes remain at these elevated levels where a substantial portion of consumers believe that e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11166-020-09329-2","citationCount":"34","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"News that Takes Your Breath Away: Risk Perceptions During an Outbreak of Vaping-related Lung Injuries.\",\"authors\":\"Dhaval Dave,&nbsp;Daniel Dench,&nbsp;Donald Kenkel,&nbsp;Alan Mathios,&nbsp;Hua Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11166-020-09329-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We study the impact of new information on people's perceptions of the risks of e-cigarettes. In September 2019 the U.S. experienced an outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, associated lung injuries (EVALI). The EVALI outbreak created an information shock, which was followed by additional new information in a later CDC recommendation. We use data on consumer risk perceptions from two sets of surveys conducted before (HINTS survey data) and during the EVALI outbreak (Google Survey data). The empirical model examines changes in risk perceptions during the early crisis period when the CDC was warning consumers that they should avoid all vaping products and during a later period when the message was refined and focused on a narrower set of illegal vaping products that contain THC (the main psychoactive compound in marijuana). Econometric results suggest that the immediate impact of the first information shock was to significantly increase the fraction of respondents who perceived e-cigarettes as more harmful than smoking. As the outbreak subsided and the CDC recommendation changed to emphasize the role of THC e-cigarette products, e-cigarette risk perceptions were only partially revised downwards. Individuals who had higher risk perceptions showed a weaker response to the first information shock but were more likely to later revise their risk perceptions downwards. We conclude the paper by discussing the public policy issues that stem from having risk perceptions of e-cigarette relative to combustible cigarettes remain at these elevated levels where a substantial portion of consumers believe that e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11166-020-09329-2\",\"citationCount\":\"34\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09329-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/7/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-020-09329-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/7/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 34

摘要

我们研究了新信息对人们对电子烟风险认知的影响。2019年9月,美国爆发了与电子烟相关的肺损伤(EVALI)。EVALI疫情造成了信息冲击,随后在CDC的建议中出现了额外的新信息。我们使用了在EVALI爆发之前(HINTS调查数据)和在EVALI爆发期间(Google调查数据)进行的两组调查中关于消费者风险感知的数据。该实证模型考察了在危机早期,疾病预防控制中心警告消费者应该避免所有电子烟产品,以及在后来的一段时间里,信息得到了改进,并集中在一小部分含有四氢大麻酚(大麻中主要的精神活性化合物)的非法电子烟产品上,人们对风险认知的变化。计量经济学结果表明,第一次信息冲击的直接影响是显著增加了认为电子烟比吸烟更有害的受访者比例。随着疫情平息,疾病预防控制中心的建议改为强调四氢大麻酚电子烟产品的作用,对电子烟的风险认知仅部分向下修正。具有较高风险感知的个体对第一次信息冲击的反应较弱,但后来更有可能下调他们的风险感知。我们通过讨论公共政策问题来结束本文,这些问题源于对电子烟相对于可燃香烟的风险认知仍然处于较高的水平,其中很大一部分消费者认为电子烟比香烟更有害。
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
News that Takes Your Breath Away: Risk Perceptions During an Outbreak of Vaping-related Lung Injuries.

We study the impact of new information on people's perceptions of the risks of e-cigarettes. In September 2019 the U.S. experienced an outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, associated lung injuries (EVALI). The EVALI outbreak created an information shock, which was followed by additional new information in a later CDC recommendation. We use data on consumer risk perceptions from two sets of surveys conducted before (HINTS survey data) and during the EVALI outbreak (Google Survey data). The empirical model examines changes in risk perceptions during the early crisis period when the CDC was warning consumers that they should avoid all vaping products and during a later period when the message was refined and focused on a narrower set of illegal vaping products that contain THC (the main psychoactive compound in marijuana). Econometric results suggest that the immediate impact of the first information shock was to significantly increase the fraction of respondents who perceived e-cigarettes as more harmful than smoking. As the outbreak subsided and the CDC recommendation changed to emphasize the role of THC e-cigarette products, e-cigarette risk perceptions were only partially revised downwards. Individuals who had higher risk perceptions showed a weaker response to the first information shock but were more likely to later revise their risk perceptions downwards. We conclude the paper by discussing the public policy issues that stem from having risk perceptions of e-cigarette relative to combustible cigarettes remain at these elevated levels where a substantial portion of consumers believe that e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes.

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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Mentorship in academic musculoskeletal radiology: perspectives from a junior faculty member. Underlying synovial sarcoma undiagnosed for more than 20 years in a patient with regional pain: a case report. Sacrococcygeal chordoma with spontaneous regression due to a large hemorrhagic component. Associations of cumulative voriconazole dose, treatment duration, and alkaline phosphatase with voriconazole-induced periostitis. Can the presence of SLAP-5 lesions be predicted by using the critical shoulder angle in traumatic anterior shoulder instability?
×
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