INTRODUCTION: In the United States, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are currently unregulated, extensively marketed, and experiencing a rapid increase in use. The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of U.S. adults about e-cigarette use in smoke-free public areas. METHODS: Data were obtained from the online HealthStyle survey administered to a probability sample of a nationally representative online panel. The study included 4,043U.S. adults, aged 18 years or older who responded to this question, "Do you think e-cigarette should be allowed to be used in public areas where tobacco smoking is prohibited?" Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine opinions on e-cigarette use in smoke-free areas by sex, age, race/ethnicity, household income, education, census region, and cigarette smoking status and e-cigarette awareness and ever use. RESULTS: Overall, about 40% of adults were uncertain whether e-cigarettes should be allowed in smoke-free areas, 37% opposed, while 23% favored their use in smoke-free public places. Multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that adults who were aware, ever used e-cigarettes, and current cigarette smokers were more likely to express an "in favor" opinion than adults who expressed an uncertain opinion (don't know). CONCLUSION: Over 75% of U.S. adults reported uncertainty or disapproval of the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas. Current cigarette smokers, adults aware or have ever used e-cigarettes were more supportive to exempting e-cigarettes from smoking restrictions. With impending regulation and the changing e-cigarette landscape, continued monitoring and research on public opinions about e-cigarette use in smoke-free places are needed.
INTRODUCTION: In the United States, electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are currently unregulated, extensively marketed, and experiencing a rapid increase in use. The purpose of this study was to examine the opinions of U.S. adults about e-cigarette use in smoke-free public areas. METHODS: Data were obtained from the online HealthStyle survey administered to a probability sample of a nationally representative online panel. The study included 4,043U.S. adults, aged 18 years or older who responded to this question, "Do you think e-cigarette should be allowed to be used in public areas where tobacco smoking is prohibited?" Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine opinions on e-cigarette use in smoke-free areas by sex, age, race/ethnicity, household income, education, census region, and cigarette smoking status and e-cigarette awareness and ever use. RESULTS: Overall, about 40% of adults were uncertain whether e-cigarettes should be allowed in smoke-free areas, 37% opposed, while 23% favored their use in smoke-free public places. Multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that adults who were aware, ever used e-cigarettes, and current cigarette smokers were more likely to express an "in favor" opinion than adults who expressed an uncertain opinion (don't know). CONCLUSION: Over 75% of U.S. adults reported uncertainty or disapproval of the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas. Current cigarette smokers, adults aware or have ever used e-cigarettes were more supportive to exempting e-cigarettes from smoking restrictions. With impending regulation and the changing e-cigarette landscape, continued monitoring and research on public opinions about e-cigarette use in smoke-free places are needed.
Authors: David P Hopkins; Sima Razi; Kimberly D Leeks; Geetika Priya Kalra; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Robin E Soler Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Shannon M Farley; Micaela H Coady; Jenna Mandel-Ricci; Elizabeth Needham Waddell; Christina Chan; Elizabeth A Kilgore; Susan M Kansagra Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Sarah E Adkison; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Andrew Hyland; Ron Borland; Hua-Hie Yong; K Michael Cummings; Ann McNeill; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Wolfgang Schober; Katalin Szendrei; Wolfgang Matzen; Helga Osiander-Fuchs; Dieter Heitmann; Thomas Schettgen; Rudolf A Jörres; Hermann Fromme Journal: Int J Hyg Environ Health Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 5.840
Authors: Elizabeth A Mumford; Frances A Stillman; Erin Tanenbaum; Nathan J Doogan; M E Roberts; M E Wewers; Devi Chelluri Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Ban A Majeed; Scott R Weaver; Kyle R Gregory; Carrie F Whitney; Paul Slovic; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: John W Ayers; Benjamin M Althouse; Jon-Patrick Allem; Eric C Leas; Mark Dredze; Rebecca S Williams Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Lauren F Chun; Farzad Moazed; Carolyn S Calfee; Michael A Matthay; Jeffrey E Gotts Journal: Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 5.464