↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and Perceptions of Electronic Cigarette Use during Pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal and Child Health Journal, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
134 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence and Perceptions of Electronic Cigarette Use during Pregnancy
Published in
Maternal and Child Health Journal, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10995-016-2257-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Wagner, Marie Camerota, Cathi Propper

Abstract

Objectives The current study is the first to assess pregnant women's perceptions of e-cigarettes and the prevalence of e-cigarette use during pregnancy, using a national sample of pregnant women (N = 445) recruited online. Methods An online survey was used to assess the prevalence and perceptions of e-cigarette use among pregnant women, including perceptions of e-cigarette safety. Results In our sample, 5.62% (n = 25) of women solely used tobacco cigarettes, 6.52% (n = 29) solely used e-cigarettes, 8.54% (n = 38) used both tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes, and 79.33% (n = 353) used neither tobacco cigarettes nor e-cigarettes during their current pregnancy. Overall, 64.27% (n = 286) of participants viewed e-cigarettes as being safer than tobacco cigarettes. Having seen advertisements for e-cigarettes increased likelihood of viewing them as safer than tobacco cigarettes (OR [Odds Ratio] = 2.5, p < .01). Conclusions for Practice Taken together, findings from this study suggest that at least as many women use e-cigarettes during pregnancy as tobacco cigarettes, that pregnant women view e-cigarettes as being safer than tobacco cigarettes, and that these views may be influenced by exposure to e-cigarette advertisements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Master 19 12%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 51 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Psychology 14 9%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Other 33 21%
Unknown 55 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,233,762
of 24,826,104 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#109
of 2,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,194
of 432,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#4
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,826,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 432,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.