Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users
Objective: This study examined caregiver perception of harm and child secondhand exposure to nicotine in a sample of e-cigarette-exclusive, cigarette-exclusive, and non-tobacco/nicotine users (non-users). Methods: Cigarette-exclusive (n = 19), e-cigarette-exclusive (n = 12), and non-users (n = 20) a...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2021-03-01
|
| Series: | Tobacco Use Insights |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X21998362 |
| _version_ | 1818877398216605696 |
|---|---|
| author | Alayna P Tackett Samantha W Wallace Caitlin E Smith Elise Turner David A Fedele Irina Stepanov William V Lechner Jessica J Hale Theodore L Wagener |
| author_facet | Alayna P Tackett Samantha W Wallace Caitlin E Smith Elise Turner David A Fedele Irina Stepanov William V Lechner Jessica J Hale Theodore L Wagener |
| author_sort | Alayna P Tackett |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective: This study examined caregiver perception of harm and child secondhand exposure to nicotine in a sample of e-cigarette-exclusive, cigarette-exclusive, and non-tobacco/nicotine users (non-users). Methods: Cigarette-exclusive (n = 19), e-cigarette-exclusive (n = 12), and non-users (n = 20) and their children (N = 51, M age = 10.47) completed self-report questionnaires about perceptions of harm, child secondhand exposure, and provided urine to assess child nicotine exposure (cotinine). ANOVAs examined differences between caregiver use status on tobacco harm perceptions and child cotinine levels. Independent samples t -test compared differences in caregiver-reported child secondhand exposure in the home and car. Results: All 3 caregiver groups rated cigarettes as highly harmful ( P = .14), but e-cigarette users rated all 3 types of e-cigarette products (Cartridge-based: P < .001; Tank: P < .001; Box Mod: P < .001) as less harmful than cigarette users and non-users. Caregivers from the e-cigarette user group reported greater child secondhand exposure than caregivers using cigarettes (past 7-day in-home exposure ( P = .03); past 7-day exposure in-home + in-car exposure ( P = .02); in-home exposure by caregivers and other people exposure ( P = .02)). Children from the cigarette user group had significantly higher levels of cotinine ( M = 16.6, SD = 21.7) compared to children from the Non-User group ( M = .43, SD = .95; P = .001), but no significant difference when compared to children from the E-Cigarette User group ( M = 6.5, SD = 13.5). Discussion: In this sample, caregivers who used e-cigarettes perceived them as less harmful, reported using them more frequently at home and in the car, even when their children were present, compared to cigarette users. As a result, children appear to be exposed to nicotine at levels similar to children living with cigarette users. Future caregiver prevention and intervention efforts should target education around the potential harms of secondhand e-cigarette aerosol to children. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-19T13:57:39Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ef8cf5b84e194134a58340c9028dffce |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1179-173X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-19T13:57:39Z |
| publishDate | 2021-03-01 |
| publisher | SAGE Publishing |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Tobacco Use Insights |
| spelling | doaj.art-ef8cf5b84e194134a58340c9028dffce2022-12-21T20:18:32ZengSAGE PublishingTobacco Use Insights1179-173X2021-03-011410.1177/1179173X21998362Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive UsersAlayna P Tackett0Samantha W Wallace1Caitlin E Smith2Elise Turner3David A Fedele4Irina Stepanov5William V Lechner6Jessica J Hale7Theodore L Wagener8Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California Los Angeles, USAUniversity of North Texas Health Science Center; Fort Worth, USADepartment of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, USADepartment of Clinical & Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, USADepartment of Clinical & Health Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, USADivision of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USAKent State University, Department of Psychological Science, USACenter for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, USACenter for Tobacco Research, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, USAObjective: This study examined caregiver perception of harm and child secondhand exposure to nicotine in a sample of e-cigarette-exclusive, cigarette-exclusive, and non-tobacco/nicotine users (non-users). Methods: Cigarette-exclusive (n = 19), e-cigarette-exclusive (n = 12), and non-users (n = 20) and their children (N = 51, M age = 10.47) completed self-report questionnaires about perceptions of harm, child secondhand exposure, and provided urine to assess child nicotine exposure (cotinine). ANOVAs examined differences between caregiver use status on tobacco harm perceptions and child cotinine levels. Independent samples t -test compared differences in caregiver-reported child secondhand exposure in the home and car. Results: All 3 caregiver groups rated cigarettes as highly harmful ( P = .14), but e-cigarette users rated all 3 types of e-cigarette products (Cartridge-based: P < .001; Tank: P < .001; Box Mod: P < .001) as less harmful than cigarette users and non-users. Caregivers from the e-cigarette user group reported greater child secondhand exposure than caregivers using cigarettes (past 7-day in-home exposure ( P = .03); past 7-day exposure in-home + in-car exposure ( P = .02); in-home exposure by caregivers and other people exposure ( P = .02)). Children from the cigarette user group had significantly higher levels of cotinine ( M = 16.6, SD = 21.7) compared to children from the Non-User group ( M = .43, SD = .95; P = .001), but no significant difference when compared to children from the E-Cigarette User group ( M = 6.5, SD = 13.5). Discussion: In this sample, caregivers who used e-cigarettes perceived them as less harmful, reported using them more frequently at home and in the car, even when their children were present, compared to cigarette users. As a result, children appear to be exposed to nicotine at levels similar to children living with cigarette users. Future caregiver prevention and intervention efforts should target education around the potential harms of secondhand e-cigarette aerosol to children.https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X21998362 |
| spellingShingle | Alayna P Tackett Samantha W Wallace Caitlin E Smith Elise Turner David A Fedele Irina Stepanov William V Lechner Jessica J Hale Theodore L Wagener Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users Tobacco Use Insights |
| title | Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users |
| title_full | Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users |
| title_fullStr | Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users |
| title_full_unstemmed | Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users |
| title_short | Harm Perceptions of Tobacco/Nicotine Products and Child Exposure: Differences between Non-Users, Cigarette-Exclusive, and Electronic Cigarette-Exclusive Users |
| title_sort | harm perceptions of tobacco nicotine products and child exposure differences between non users cigarette exclusive and electronic cigarette exclusive users |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1177/1179173X21998362 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT alaynaptackett harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT samanthawwallace harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT caitlinesmith harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT eliseturner harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT davidafedele harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT irinastepanov harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT williamvlechner harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT jessicajhale harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers AT theodorelwagener harmperceptionsoftobacconicotineproductsandchildexposuredifferencesbetweennonuserscigaretteexclusiveandelectroniccigaretteexclusiveusers |