Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28541868›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2017

Perceptions of Harm to Children Exposed to Secondhand Aerosol From Electronic Vapor Products, Styles Survey, 2015.

Kimberly H Nguyen, Van T Tong, Kristy Marynak, Brian A King

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Vaping in the Workplace: Prevalence and Attitudes Among Employed US Adults.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Why Don't More Smokers Switch to Using E-Cigarettes: The Views of Confirmed Smokers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Article
  12. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kimberly H NguyenOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341. Email: Uxp1@cdc.gov.
Van T TongDivision of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Kristy MarynakOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Brian A KingOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe US Surgeon General has concluded that e-cigarette aerosol is not harmless and can contain harmful and potentially harmful chemicals, including nicotine. We assessed factors associated with adults' perceptions of harm related to children's exposure to secondhand aerosol from electronic vapor products (EVPs).

methodsData came from the 2015 Styles, an Internet panel survey of US adults aged 18 years or older (n = 4,127). Respondents were asked whether they believe aerosol from other people's EVPs causes children harm. Harm perceptions were assessed overall and by cigarette smoking, EVP use, and sociodemographic characteristics. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess odds of perceived harm.

resultsOverall, 5.3% of adults responded that secondhand EVP exposure caused "no harm" to children, 39.9% responded "little harm" or "some harm," 21.5% responded "a lot of harm," and 33.3% responded "don't know." Odds of "no harm" response were greater among men than among women, current and former cigarette smokers than among never smokers, and current and former EVP users than among never users; odds were lower among non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic other races than among non-Hispanic whites. Odds of responding "don't know" were greater among men, current cigarette smokers, and current and former EVP users; odds were lower among those aged 45 to 64 years than those aged 18 to 24 years and lower among non-Hispanic other races and Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites.

conclusionTwo-fifths of US adults believe that children's exposure to secondhand EVP aerosol causes some or little harm, while one-third do not know whether it causes harm. Efforts are warranted to educate the public about the health risks of secondhand EVP aerosol, particularly for children.

Indexed as

Air Pollution, IndoorElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsAdultAerosolsChildChild HealthData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesAerosols

Identifiers

PMID28541868
PMCPMC5538867
OpenAlexW2616581056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.