ArticleTobacco induced diseases2020
School-type differences in e-cigarette use and its correlates among Chinese adolescents.
Article in Tobacco induced diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of electronic cigarettes vaping globally: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2022Pooled it
- Attitudinal and social factors associated with e-cigarette use among students in formal and non-formal educational settings in Chiang Mai, Thailand.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- A Scoping Review of Vaping Among the Asian Adolescent Population.Asia-Pacific journal of public health · 2024Article
- Factors associated with e-cigarette use among vocational students: A cross-sectional multistage cluster survey, Thailand.Tobacco induced diseases · 2023Article
- Exposure to e-cigarette advertising, attitudes, and use susceptibility in adolescents who had never used e-cigarettes or cigarettes.BMC public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStudies examining e-cigarette use among adolescents in Shanghai, China, have focused largely on middle school students. Given the vast differences between vocational and traditional schools, we aimed to explore school-type differences in e-cigarette use and correlates among adolescents in Shanghai.
methodsThe study was conducted in September 2017 through multistage and stratified cluster random sampling, which consisted of 10699 adolescents aged 13-17 years attending traditional and vocational schools in Shanghai. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to assess the weighted prevalence and correlates of ever e-cigarette use stratified by school type.
resultsThe weighted prevalence of e-cigarette use was 5.21% among all respondents. Although e-cigarette use was more prevalent among students attending vocational schools (p<0.001), its correlates were similar across both school types. Among vocational school students, ever tobacco use (OR=3.10; 95% CI: 2.36-4.08) was the most significant correlate, followed by having most friends as smokers (OR=2.97; 95% CI: 1.84-4.81) and having morning cravings (OR=1.90; 95% CI: 1.64-2.20). Among traditional school students, having most friends as smokers (OR=4.87; 95% CI: 2.78-8.54) and ever tobacco use (OR=3.78; 95% CI: 2.68-5.34) were the most significant correlates, followed by knowledge of pro-tobacco advertisements (OR=2.12; 95% CI: 1.54-2.91).
conclusionsJoint efforts from the national, school and family levels are needed to control e-cigarette use among adolescents in China, and such efforts should be tailored to address differences in school characteristics.
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.