Self-rated health differences between exclusive e-cigarette users and exclusive cigarette smokers: evidence from the 2017-2019 Scottish Health Survey.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Don Eliseo Lucero-Prisno, Isaac Olushola Ogunkola
{"title":"Self-rated health differences between exclusive e-cigarette users and exclusive cigarette smokers: evidence from the 2017-2019 Scottish Health Survey.","authors":"Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Don Eliseo Lucero-Prisno, Isaac Olushola Ogunkola","doi":"10.1007/s11739-025-03873-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The comparative health implications of e-cigarette use versus traditional cigarette smoking remain a critical focus in public health research. This cross-sectional study examined differences in self-rated general health between exclusive e-cigarette users and exclusive cigarette smokers, using data from the 2017-2019 Scottish Health Survey. A total of 2484 adults (aged 16 and above) were included and categorized as exclusive e-cigarette users (n = 565) or exclusive cigarette smokers (n = 1919). Self-rated health was assessed using a single-item measure with five response categories: \"very bad,\" \"bad,\" \"fair,\" \"good,\" and \"very good\". Generalized ordinal logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between nicotine product use and self-rated health, adjusting for age, sex, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, marital status, ethnicity, alcohol consumption frequency, physical activity, presence of longstanding physical or mental health conditions, and age of smoking initiation. In the fully adjusted model, exclusive e-cigarette users had higher odds of reporting better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smokers overall (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51, p = 0.012). A graded relationship was also observed in the fully adjusted model, with progressively lower odds of reporting better self-rated health as smoking intensity increased, using exclusive e-cigarette users as the reference group. Heavy smokers (≥ 20 cigarettes/day) had the lowest odds of reporting better self-rated health (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.80, p < 0.001), followed by moderate smokers (10 to < 20 cigarettes/day) (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99, p = 0.047). In contrast, light smokers (< 10 cigarettes/day) showed no significant difference in self-rated health compared to exclusive e-cigarette users (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.18, p = 0.614). These findings indicate that exclusive e-cigarette use is associated with better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smoking, particularly among moderate and heavy smokers. Additional analyses revealed no significant differences in self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users based on prior smoking history (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.43-2.08, p = 0.882) or among exclusive cigarette smokers based on prior e-cigarette use (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09, p = 0.219). These findings suggest that prior use is unlikely to explain the observed association between exclusive e-cigarette use and better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smoking. Given the subjective nature of self-rated health, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Future longitudinal studies incorporating objective health measures are essential to assess the long-term impacts of e-cigarette use and inform evidence-based harm reduction policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":13662,"journal":{"name":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-025-03873-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The comparative health implications of e-cigarette use versus traditional cigarette smoking remain a critical focus in public health research. This cross-sectional study examined differences in self-rated general health between exclusive e-cigarette users and exclusive cigarette smokers, using data from the 2017-2019 Scottish Health Survey. A total of 2484 adults (aged 16 and above) were included and categorized as exclusive e-cigarette users (n = 565) or exclusive cigarette smokers (n = 1919). Self-rated health was assessed using a single-item measure with five response categories: "very bad," "bad," "fair," "good," and "very good". Generalized ordinal logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between nicotine product use and self-rated health, adjusting for age, sex, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, marital status, ethnicity, alcohol consumption frequency, physical activity, presence of longstanding physical or mental health conditions, and age of smoking initiation. In the fully adjusted model, exclusive e-cigarette users had higher odds of reporting better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smokers overall (OR = 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51, p = 0.012). A graded relationship was also observed in the fully adjusted model, with progressively lower odds of reporting better self-rated health as smoking intensity increased, using exclusive e-cigarette users as the reference group. Heavy smokers (≥ 20 cigarettes/day) had the lowest odds of reporting better self-rated health (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.80, p < 0.001), followed by moderate smokers (10 to < 20 cigarettes/day) (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99, p = 0.047). In contrast, light smokers (< 10 cigarettes/day) showed no significant difference in self-rated health compared to exclusive e-cigarette users (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.75-1.18, p = 0.614). These findings indicate that exclusive e-cigarette use is associated with better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smoking, particularly among moderate and heavy smokers. Additional analyses revealed no significant differences in self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users based on prior smoking history (OR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.43-2.08, p = 0.882) or among exclusive cigarette smokers based on prior e-cigarette use (OR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.69-1.09, p = 0.219). These findings suggest that prior use is unlikely to explain the observed association between exclusive e-cigarette use and better self-rated health compared to exclusive cigarette smoking. Given the subjective nature of self-rated health, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Future longitudinal studies incorporating objective health measures are essential to assess the long-term impacts of e-cigarette use and inform evidence-based harm reduction policies.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Internal and Emergency Medicine
Internal and Emergency Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Internal and Emergency Medicine (IEM) is an independent, international, English-language, peer-reviewed journal designed for internists and emergency physicians. IEM publishes a variety of manuscript types including Original investigations, Review articles, Letters to the Editor, Editorials and Commentaries. Occasionally IEM accepts unsolicited Reviews, Commentaries or Editorials. The journal is divided into three sections, i.e., Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine and Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment, with three separate editorial boards. In the Internal Medicine section, invited Case records and Physical examinations, devoted to underlining the role of a clinical approach in selected clinical cases, are also published. The Emergency Medicine section will include a Morbidity and Mortality Report and an Airway Forum concerning the management of difficult airway problems. As far as Critical Care is becoming an integral part of Emergency Medicine, a new sub-section will report the literature that concerns the interface not only for the care of the critical patient in the Emergency Department, but also in the Intensive Care Unit. Finally, in the Clinical Evidence and Health Technology Assessment section brief discussions of topics of evidence-based medicine (Cochrane’s corner) and Research updates are published. IEM encourages letters of rebuttal and criticism of published articles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of Internal and Emergency Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信