| Title |
Dual use of electronic and tobacco cigarettes among adolescents: a cross-sectional study in Poland
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-015-0756-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maciej L. Goniewicz, Noel J. Leigh, Michal Gawron, Justyna Nadolska, Lukasz Balwicki, Connor McGuire, Andrzej Sobczak |
| Abstract |
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are gaining in popularity among youth. While these products may be beneficial in adult smokers, the effect on young users of electronic and tobacco cigarettes (dual users) is unknown. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency of dual use among adolescents and to compare tobacco cigarette consumption among dual and exclusive tobacco cigarette users. A cross-sectional survey of a sample of 2213 Polish students aged 16-18 conducted between December 2013 and February 2014. Overall, 21.8 % of students were dual users. Dual users were more likely to smoke tobacco cigarettes on a daily basis [adjusted odds ratio, AOR 3.54 (95 % CI 2.34-5.36) and less likely to smoke fewer cigarettes per day (AOR 0.27 (95 % CI 0.12-0.57)] than exclusive tobacco cigarette users. The frequency of dual use was higher than exclusive use of a single product among Polish adolescents. Young dual users do not smoke a lower number of tobacco cigarettes per day than exclusive tobacco cigarette users. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 10% |
| Poland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 80 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 16% |
| Psychology | 9 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 21% |
| Unknown | 23 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,047,002
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#721
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,389
of 294,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#20
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 294,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.