| Title |
Electronic cigarette use among Korean adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-015-0763-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jung Ah Lee, Sun Hee Kim, Hong-Jun Cho |
| Abstract |
We investigated the prevalence and correlates of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use in a representative sample of Korean adults. This cross-sectional study used data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey of 2013. We analyzed 5338 subjects (≥19 years old) who provided data on e-cigarette use, sex, age, socioeconomic status, and health risk behaviors. Multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression. Using weighted samples, the prevalence of ever and current e-cigarette use were 6.6 and 1.1 %, respectively (11.2 and 2.0 % in men and 2.0 and 0.4 % in women). In multivariate analysis, the probability of ever e-cigarette use was highest in current smokers (OR 29.3, 95 % CI 15.5-55.3), former smokers (OR 6.1, 95 % CI 3.3-11.2), and daily heavy drinkers (OR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.1-3.4). Current e-cigarette use was associated with current smoking (OR 16.2, 95 % CI 4.7-55.4) and weekly heavy drinking (OR 2.7, 95 % CI 1.1-6.7). E-cigarette use was strongly associated with conventional cigarette use and with frequent heavy drinking. Dual use e-cigarettes and conventional cigarette use as well as the association between heavy alcohol use and e-cigarettes need further exploration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 11% |
| Psychology | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#821
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,766
of 292,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#23
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th 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 55% 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 292,262 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 67% 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 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.