Yuyan Shi1, Sharon E Cummins1,2, Shu-Hong Zhu1,2. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA. 2. Moores UCSD Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although most US states prohibit cigarette smoking in public places and worksites, fewer jurisdictions regulate indoor use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Given the dramatic increase in e-cigarette use and concern about its impact on non-users, there is a need to examine the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments and related attitudes and perceptions. METHODS: Recruited from a nationally representative adult panel (GfK's KnowledgePanel), 952 current users of e-cigarettes completed a cross-sectional online survey in 2014. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine the factors associated with ever using e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments. RESULTS: Overall, 59.5% of e-cigarette users had vaped where cigarette smoking was not allowed. Young adults (18-29 years) were most likely to do so, 74.2%. The places of first-time use most often mentioned were service venues (bar, restaurant, lounge and club), 30.7%, followed by worksites, 23.5%. Daily e-cigarette users were more likely to have vaped in smoke-free environments than non-daily users (OR=2.08, p=0.012). Only 2.5% of those who used e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments reported negative reactions from other people. Most e-cigarette users did not think e-cigarettes are harmful to themselves or to by-standers, and thus should not be banned where smoking is; those who had used e-cigarettes where smoking is banned were even more likely to hold these views. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette use in smoke-free environments was common, suggesting that most e-cigarette users do not consider smoke-free laws to apply to e-cigarettes. Explicit laws should be considered if jurisdictions want to prohibit e-cigarette use in public places. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Although most US states prohibit cigarette smoking in public places and worksites, fewer jurisdictions regulate indoor use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Given the dramatic increase in e-cigarette use and concern about its impact on non-users, there is a need to examine the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments and related attitudes and perceptions. METHODS: Recruited from a nationally representative adult panel (GfK's KnowledgePanel), 952 current users of e-cigarettes completed a cross-sectional online survey in 2014. Multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to examine the factors associated with ever using e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments. RESULTS: Overall, 59.5% of e-cigarette users had vaped where cigarette smoking was not allowed. Young adults (18-29 years) were most likely to do so, 74.2%. The places of first-time use most often mentioned were service venues (bar, restaurant, lounge and club), 30.7%, followed by worksites, 23.5%. Daily e-cigarette users were more likely to have vaped in smoke-free environments than non-daily users (OR=2.08, p=0.012). Only 2.5% of those who used e-cigarettes in smoke-free environments reported negative reactions from other people. Most e-cigarette users did not think e-cigarettes are harmful to themselves or to by-standers, and thus should not be banned where smoking is; those who had used e-cigarettes where smoking is banned were even more likely to hold these views. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette use in smoke-free environments was common, suggesting that most e-cigarette users do not consider smoke-free laws to apply to e-cigarettes. Explicit laws should be considered if jurisdictions want to prohibit e-cigarette use in public places. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic nicotine delivery devices; Public policy; Surveillance and monitoring
Authors: Ban A Majeed; Shanta R Dube; Kymberle Sterling; Carrie Whitney; Michael P Eriksen Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Montse Ballbè; Jose M Martínez-Sánchez; Xisca Sureda; Marcela Fu; Raúl Pérez-Ortuño; José A Pascual; Esteve Saltó; Esteve Fernández Journal: Environ Res Date: 2014-09-27 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Arian Saffari; Nancy Daher; Ario Ruprecht; Cinzia De Marco; Paolo Pozzi; Roberto Boffi; Samera H Hamad; Martin M Shafer; James J Schauer; Dane Westerdahl; Constantinos Sioutas Journal: Environ Sci Process Impacts Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.238
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: 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
Authors: Jennifer Bayly; Catherine Trad; Launick Saint-Fort; Mary Andrews; Minal Patel; Denise Haynie; Bruce Simons-Morton; Kelvin Choi Journal: J Am Coll Health Date: 2018-11-02
Authors: Tia N Borger; Gabriella E Puleo; Jessica N Rivera Rivera; Devin Montgomery; William R Bowling; Jessica L Burris Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2021-03-25
Authors: Tamlin S Conner; Jiaxu Zeng; Mei-Ling Blank; Vicky He; Janet Hoek Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390