ArticleRevue des maladies respiratoires2022
[Smoking, vaping among hospital staff during the Covid-19 pandemic: Appraisal of the "tobacco-free hospital, campus" campaign in Brest].
Article in Revue des maladies respiratoires, 2022. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smoking and Vaping Profiles of Healthcare Workers and Their Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Regarding Vaping.Florence Nightingale journal of nursing · 2026Article
- Evidence from a Smoking Management Service in a University Teaching Hospital in Dublin, Ireland monitored by repeat surveys, 1997-2022.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn the framework of a "tobacco-free hospital and campus" campaign, we conducted a study on the prevalence of smoking and vaping among a university hospital (CHRU) staff. The study took place in late 2020 (from 1 September to 15 December), and involved self-assessment of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on smoking. MATERIAL AND
methodA cross-sectional study was carried out using an online questionnaire, which was distributed by email and QR code posting and included socio-professional details as well as data on participants' smoking and vaping.
resultsThere were 782 responses, representing a participation rate of 13.5%. The sample included 73.3% women and 22.7% men; 28.9% nurses, 24.9% medical staff, 3.6% nursing assistants and 42.6% other professional categories. The overall smoking rate was 13%. Sixty-two (7.9%) participants vaped; 37 (5%) vaped exclusively, 25 (3.2%) combined smoking and vaping. Men smoked more than women: 23.7% vs. 9.4% (P < 0.01). Medical staff smoked and vaped less than other categories; 6.2% vs 14.8% (P < 0.01) and 4.1% vs 9.1% respectively (P=0.02). Doctors were more often non-smokers: OR=2.71 (95% CI: 1.14-6.46). Among smokers, 25% said they had increased their cigarette consumption during the covid-19 pandemic, frequently as a means of combating stress or fatigue.
conclusionThis study showed a lower smoking rate than in the literature, possibly due to the high participation of physicians. Ours were the initial estimates of vaping among hospital staff.
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.