45
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Changing Perceptions of Harm of e-Cigarette vs Cigarette Use Among Adults in 2 US National Surveys From 2012 to 2017

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Questions

          How do US adults perceive the harm of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to combustible cigarettes, and how has their perception changed over time?

          Findings

          In 2 nationally representative multiyear cross-sectional surveys of US adults, the proportion who perceived e-cigarettes to be as harmful as or more harmful than cigarettes increased substantially from 2012 to 2017.

          Meaning

          The need for accurate communication of the risk of e-cigarettes to the public is urgent and should clearly differentiate the absolute from the relative harm of e-cigarettes.

          Abstract

          This survey study of data from 2 cross-sectional nationally representative surveys examines how US adults perceive the harm of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) relative to combustible cigarettes and how their perception has changed from 2012 to 2017.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Debate is ongoing about whether the scientific evidence of the health risks of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) compared with combustible cigarettes (hereinafter referred to as cigarettes) has been accurately communicated to the public. Large representative surveys are needed to examine how the public perceives the health risk of e-cigarettes and how their perceptions change over time.

          Objective

          To examine how US adults perceived the harm of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes and how their perception has changed from 2012 to 2017.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          Survey study using data from 2 multiyear cross-sectional nationally representative surveys—the Tobacco Products and Risk Perceptions Surveys (TPRPS) and the Health Information National Trends Surveys (HINTS)—to assess perceived harm of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes among US adults in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Respondents were selected via address-based sampling or random-digit dialing and consisted of adults 18 years or older. Analyses were conducted from February through April 2018.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Self-reported perceived harm of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes.

          Results

          The analytical samples of TPRPS consisted of 2800 adults in 2012 (cumulative response rate, 7.3%), 5668 in 2014 (cumulative response rate, 6.6%), 5372 in 2015 (cumulative response rate, 6.8%), 5245 in 2016 (cumulative response rate, 6.4%), and 5357 in 2017 (cumulative response rate, 5.8%). The analytical samples of HINTS consisted of 2609 adults in 2012 (response rate, 39.9%), 3301 in 2014 (response rate, 34.4%), 2224 in 2015 (response rate, 33.0%), and 2683 in 2017 (response rate, 32.4%). The proportion of adults who perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes decreased from 39.4% (95% CI, 36.9%-41.9%) in 2012 to 33.9% (95% CI, 32.7%-35.2%) in 2017 in TPRPS and decreased from 50.7% (95% CI, 48.8%-52.7%) in 2012 to 34.5% (95% CI, 32.7%-36.3%) in 2017 in HINTS. During the same period, the proportion of adults who perceived e-cigarettes to be as harmful as cigarettes increased from 11.5% (95% CI, 10.0%-13.2%) in 2012 to 36.4% (95% CI, 35.1%-37.7%) in 2017 (TPRPS) and from 46.4% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.3%) in 2012 to 55.6% (95% CI, 53.7%-57.5%) in 2017 (HINTS). Those who perceived e-cigarettes to be more harmful than cigarettes increased from 1.3% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.2%) in 2012 to 4.3% (95% CI, 3.8%-4.9%) in 2017 (TPRPS) and from 2.8% (95% CI, 2.2%-3.5%) in 2012 to 9.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-11.1%) in 2017 (HINTS).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this study, the proportion of US adults who perceived e-cigarettes to be as harmful as or more harmful than cigarettes increased substantially from 2012 to 2017. The findings of this study underscore the urgent need to accurately communicate the risks of e-cigarettes to the public, which should clearly differentiate the absolute from the relative harms of e-cigarettes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          E-Cigarettes: Use, Effects on Smoking, Risks, and Policy Implications

          Since e-cigarettes appeared in the mid-2000s, some practitioners, researchers, and policy makers have embraced them as a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes and an effective way to stop smoking. While e-cigarettes deliver lower levels of carcinogens than do conventional cigarettes, they still expose users to high levels of ultrafine particles and other toxins that may substantially increase cardiovascular and noncancer lung disease risks, which account for more than half of all smoking-caused deaths, at rates similar to conventional cigarettes. Moreover, rather than stimulating smokers to switch from conventional cigarettes to less dangerous e-cigarettes or quitting altogether, e-cigarettes are reducing smoking cessation rates and expanding the nicotine market by attracting youth.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Association Between Electronic Cigarette Use and Myocardial Infarction

            Introduction: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are promoted as a less risky alternative to conventional cigarettes and have grown in popularity. Experimental and clinical evidence suggests that they could increase the risk of myocardial infarction. Methods: The National Health Interview Surveys of 2014 ( n =36,697) and 2016 ( n =33,028) were used to examine the cross-sectional association between e-cigarette use (never, former, some days, daily) and cigarette smoking (same categories) and myocardial infarction in a single logistic regression model that also included demographics (age, gender, BMI) and health characteristics (hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia) using logistic regression. Data were collected in 2014 and 2016 and analyzed in 2017 and 2018. Results: Daily e-cigarette use was independently associated with increased odds of having had a myocardial infarction (OR=1.79, 95% CI=1.20, 2.66, p=0.004) as was daily conventional cigarette smoking (OR=2.72, 95% CI=2.29, 3.24, p <0.001). Former and some day e-cigarette use were not significantly associated with having had a myocardial infarction ( p =0.608 and p =0.392) whereas former (OR=1.70, p <0.001) and some day cigarette smoking (OR=2.36, p <0.001) were. Odds of a myocardial infarction were also increased with history of hypertension (OR=2.32, p <0.001); high cholesterol (OR=2.36, p <0.001); and diabetes (OR=1.77, p <0.001); and age (OR=1.65 per 10 years, p <0.001). Women (OR=0.47, p <0.001) had lower odds of myocardial infarction. Conclusions: Daily e-cigarette use, adjusted for smoking conventional cigarettes as well as other risk factors, is associated with increased risk of myocardial infarction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Harm Minimization and Tobacco Control: Reframing Societal Views of Nicotine Use to Rapidly Save Lives

              Inhalation of the toxic smoke produced by combusting tobacco products, primarily cigarettes, is the overwhelming cause of tobacco-related disease and death in the United States and globally. A diverse class of alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS) has recently been developed that do not combust tobacco and are substantially less harmful than cigarettes. ANDS have the potential to disrupt the 120-year dominance of the cigarette and challenge the field on how the tobacco pandemic could be reversed if nicotine is decoupled from lethal inhaled smoke. ANDS may provide a means to compete with, and even replace, combusted cigarette use, saving more lives more rapidly than previously possible. On the basis of the scientific evidence on ANDS, we explore benefits and harms to public health to guide practice, policy, and regulation. A reframing of societal nicotine use through the lens of harm minimization is an extraordinary opportunity to enhance the impact of tobacco control efforts.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                29 March 2019
                March 2019
                29 March 2019
                : 2
                : 3
                : e191047
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta
                [2 ]Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta
                [3 ]Currently with IMPAQ International, Columbia, Maryland
                [4 ]Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University
                [5 ]Decision Research, Eugene, Oregon
                [6 ]Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: January 27, 2019.
                Published: March 29, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1047
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Huang J et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Jidong Huang, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, 140 Decatur St, Urban Life Bldg, Ste 859, Atlanta, GA 30303 ( jhuang17@ 123456gsu.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Huang had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Huang, Weaver, Slovic, Eriksen.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Huang, Slovic.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Huang, Feng.
                Obtained funding: Weaver, Eriksen.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Huang, Weaver, Pechacek.
                Supervision: Huang, Eriksen.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Huang reported grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the conduct of the study. Dr Weaver reported grants from the NIH, NIDA, and FDA during the conduct of the study. Dr Pechacek reported grants from the NIH, NIDA, and FDA during the conduct of the study. Dr Eriksen reported grants from the NIH, NIDA, and FDA during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer, Inc, outside the submitted work. Drs Pechacek and Eriksen received unrestricted research funding support from Pfizer, Inc (“Diffusion of Tobacco Control Fundamentals to Other Large Chinese Cities” [principal investigator, Dr Eriksen]). No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant P50DA036128 from the NIH, NIDA, and the FDA Center for Tobacco Products.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders/sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the FDA.
                Article
                zoi190061
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1047
                6450305
                30924893
                d48fa858-c549-44ac-a5a4-d1f24ccca460
                Copyright 2019 Huang J et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 4 October 2018
                : 24 January 2019
                : 29 January 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Featured
                Online Only
                Public Health

                Comments

                Comment on this article