Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29857024›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2018

Rules to prohibit the use of electronic vapor products inside homes and personal vehicles among adults in the U.S., 2017.

Andrea S Gentzke, David M Homa, J Brandon Kenemer, Yessica Gomez, Brian A King

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

Andrea S GentzkeOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA. Electronic address: agentzke@cdc.gov.
David M HomaOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
J Brandon KenemerOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Yessica GomezOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.
Brian A KingOffice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, MS F-79, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most U.S. adults have voluntary rules prohibiting the use of smoked tobacco products in their homes and vehicles. However, the prevalence of similar rules for electronic vapor products (EVPs) is uncertain. This study assessed the prevalence and correlates of rules prohibiting EVP use inside homes and vehicles. Data from a 2017 Internet-based panel survey of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years (n = 4107) were analyzed. For homes and vehicles, prevalence of reporting that EVP use was not allowed, partially allowed, fully allowed, or unknown was assessed overall and by covariates. Correlates of prohibiting EVP use was assessed by multivariable logistic regression. In homes, 58.6% of adults did not allow EVP use, 7.7% partially allowed use, 10.1% fully allowed use, and 23.6% were unsure of the rules. In vehicles, 63.8% of respondents did not allow EVP use, 6.0% partially allowed use, 8.9% fully allowed use, and 21.4% were unsure of the rules. Following multivariable adjustment, prohibiting EVP use inside homes and vehicles was more likely among respondents with higher income and education, and with a child aged <18 years. Users of EVPs and other tobacco products, and respondents living with users of EVPs and other tobacco products, were less likely to prohibit EVP use in these locations. These findings show that about 6 in 10 U.S. adults have rules prohibiting EVP use inside homes and vehicles, but variations exist by population subgroups. Voluntary smoke-free rules in homes and vehicles that include EVPs can help protect children and non-users from secondhand EVP aerosol exposure.

Indexed as

AutomobilesHousingSmoke-Free PolicyAdolescentAdultAgedElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsEnvironmental ExposureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSmokingSurveys and QuestionnairesTobacco Smoke PollutionTobacco Smoke PollutionElectronic nicotine delivery systemsHomeSecondhand smokeSmoke-free policyTobacco smoke pollutionVehicle

Identifiers

PMID29857024
PMCPMC6082704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.