ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2019
U.S. Adult Attitudes About Electronic Vapor Product Use in Indoor Public Places.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- It's Just Steam: a qualitative analysis of New Zealand ENDS users' perceptions of secondhand aerosol.Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Vaping in the Workplace: Prevalence and Attitudes Among Employed US Adults.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that aerosol from electronic vapor products, such as e-cigarettes, can contain harmful and potentially harmful constituents. This study assessed the prevalence and determinants of U.S. adult attitudes toward electronic vapor product use in indoor public places.
methodsData from 2017 Summer Styles, an Internet survey of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years (n = 4,107) were analyzed in 2017. Respondents were asked, Do you favor or oppose allowing the use of electronic vapor products in indoor public places such as workplaces, restaurants, and bars? Responses were strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, and strongly oppose. Multivariate Poisson regression was used to determine sociodemographic correlates of opposition (somewhat or strongly).
resultsIn 2017, a total of 82.4% of adults strongly or somewhat opposed the use of electronic vapor products in indoor public places, including 28.0% of current (past 30-day) electronic vapor product users and 52.7% of current cigarette smokers. After adjustment, opposition was significantly lower among current and former electronic vapor product users than never users, current cigarette smokers than never smokers, and people living with tobacco product users. Opposition was significantly higher among adults aged ≥45 years than those aged 18-24 years and among adults who had rules prohibiting electronic vapor product use in their vehicles or homes than those without such rules.
conclusionsApproximately eight in ten U.S. adults, including more than one quarter of electronic vapor product users, opposed electronic vapor product use in indoor public places. Prohibiting electronic vapor product use in indoor public areas can protect bystanders from the health risks of secondhand electronic vapor product aerosol exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.