1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Young Canadian e-Cigarette Users and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Examining Vaping Behaviors by Pandemic Onset and Gender

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study was to test how youth and young adult e-cigarette users responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2020 Youth and Young Adult Vaping Survey ( N = 1,308) included 540 (44.7%) participants that reported differences in their vaping behaviors since the onset of the pandemic. Gender was the only relevant covariate that yielded a significant effect and/or interaction through a multivariate test. A two-way multivariate analysis of variance was used to test the effect of pandemic onset (pre- vs. during-pandemic), gender (males vs. females), and their interaction on vaping behaviors (days of vaping per week, episodes of vaping per day, and puffs per vaping episode). Respondents reported fewer days of vaping per week, episodes of vaping per day, and puffs per vaping episode during-pandemic than pre-pandemic [ F (3,533) = 52.81, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.229]. The multivariate effect of gender on the three vaping outcomes was not statistically significant [ F (3, 533) = 2.14, p = 0.095, η p 2 = 0.012], though the interaction between pandemic onset and gender was [ F (3, 533) = 2.86, p = 0.036, η p 2 = 0.016]. Males reported fewer episodes of vaping per day [ t (262) = 7.40, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 5.19–8.97] and puffs per vaping episode [ t (263) = 3.23, p = 0.001, 95% CI:0.292–1.20] during-pandemic than pre-pandemic. Females reported fewer vaping episodes per day during-pandemic than pre-pandemic [ t (273) = 5.14, p < 0.001, 95% CI: 2.76–6.18]. Further, females reported more frequent puffs per vaping episode in comparison to males during-pandemic [ t (538) = −2.38, p = 0.017, 95% CI: −2.09–0.200]. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to reduce vaping through health promotion messaging. Since females take more puffs per vaping episode overall, they may benefit the most from greater vaping cessation supports.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Covid-19: risk factors for severe disease and death

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic

            Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the use of face masks has become ubiquitous in China and other Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan. Some provinces and municipalities in China have enforced compulsory face mask policies in public areas; however, China's national guideline has adopted a risk-based approach in offering recommendations for using face masks among health-care workers and the general public. We compared face mask use recommendations by different health authorities (panel ). Despite the consistency in the recommendation that symptomatic individuals and those in health-care settings should use face masks, discrepancies were observed in the general public and community settings.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 For example, the US Surgeon General advised against buying masks for use by healthy people. One important reason to discourage widespread use of face masks is to preserve limited supplies for professional use in health-care settings. Universal face mask use in the community has also been discouraged with the argument that face masks provide no effective protection against coronavirus infection. Panel Recommendations on face mask use in community settings WHO 1 • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. China 2 • People at moderate risk* of infection: surgical or disposable mask for medical use. • People at low risk† of infection: disposable mask for medical use. • People at very low risk‡ of infection: do not have to wear a mask or can wear non-medical mask (such as cloth mask). Hong Kong 3 • Surgical masks can prevent transmission of respiratory viruses from people who are ill. It is essential for people who are symptomatic (even if they have mild symptoms) to wear a surgical mask. • Wear a surgical mask when taking public transport or staying in crowded places. It is important to wear a mask properly and practice good hand hygiene before wearing and after removing a mask. Singapore 4 • Wear a mask if you have respiratory symptoms, such as a cough or runny nose. Japan 5 • The effectiveness of wearing a face mask to protect yourself from contracting viruses is thought to be limited. If you wear a face mask in confined, badly ventilated spaces, it might help avoid catching droplets emitted from others but if you are in an open-air environment, the use of face mask is not very efficient. USA 6 • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend that people who are well wear a face mask (including respirators) to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. • US Surgeon General urged people on Twitter to stop buying face masks. UK 7 • Face masks play a very important role in places such as hospitals, but there is very little evidence of widespread benefit for members of the public. Germany 8 • There is not enough evidence to prove that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduces a healthy person's risk of becoming infected while wearing it. According to WHO, wearing a mask in situations where it is not recommended to do so can create a false sense of security because it might lead to neglecting fundamental hygiene measures, such as proper hand hygiene. However, there is an essential distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Evidence that face masks can provide effective protection against respiratory infections in the community is scarce, as acknowledged in recommendations from the UK and Germany.7, 8 However, face masks are widely used by medical workers as part of droplet precautions when caring for patients with respiratory infections. It would be reasonable to suggest vulnerable individuals avoid crowded areas and use surgical face masks rationally when exposed to high-risk areas. As evidence suggests COVID-19 could be transmitted before symptom onset, community transmission might be reduced if everyone, including people who have been infected but are asymptomatic and contagious, wear face masks. Recommendations on face masks vary across countries and we have seen that the use of masks increases substantially once local epidemics begin, including the use of N95 respirators (without any other protective equipment) in community settings. This increase in use of face masks by the general public exacerbates the global supply shortage of face masks, with prices soaring, 9 and risks supply constraints to frontline health-care professionals. As a response, a few countries (eg, Germany and South Korea) banned exportation of face masks to prioritise local demand. 10 WHO called for a 40% increase in the production of protective equipment, including face masks. 9 Meanwhile, health authorities should optimise face mask distribution to prioritise the needs of frontline health-care workers and the most vulnerable populations in communities who are more susceptible to infection and mortality if infected, including older adults (particularly those older than 65 years) and people with underlying health conditions. People in some regions (eg, Thailand, China, and Japan) opted for makeshift alternatives or repeated usage of disposable surgical masks. Notably, improper use of face masks, such as not changing disposable masks, could jeopardise the protective effect and even increase the risk of infection. Consideration should also be given to variations in societal and cultural paradigms of mask usage. The contrast between face mask use as hygienic practice (ie, in many Asian countries) or as something only people who are unwell do (ie, in European and North American countries) has induced stigmatisation and racial aggravations, for which further public education is needed. One advantage of universal use of face masks is that it prevents discrimination of individuals who wear masks when unwell because everybody is wearing a mask. It is time for governments and public health agencies to make rational recommendations on appropriate face mask use to complement their recommendations on other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene. WHO currently recommends that people should wear face masks if they have respiratory symptoms or if they are caring for somebody with symptoms. Perhaps it would also be rational to recommend that people in quarantine wear face masks if they need to leave home for any reason, to prevent potential asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission. In addition, vulnerable populations, such as older adults and those with underlying medical conditions, should wear face masks if available. Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit. In parallel, urgent research on the duration of protection of face masks, the measures to prolong life of disposable masks, and the invention on reusable masks should be encouraged. Taiwan had the foresight to create a large stockpile of face masks; other countries or regions might now consider this as part of future pandemic plans. © 2020 Sputnik/Science Photo Library 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              COVID-19 and smoking: A systematic review of the evidence

              COVID-19 is a coronavirus outbreak that initially appeared in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019, but it has already evolved into a pandemic spreading rapidly worldwide 1,2 . As of 18 March 2020, a total number of 194909 cases of COVID-19 have been reported, including 7876 deaths, the majority of which have been reported in China (3242) and Italy (2505) 3 . However, as the pandemic is still unfortunately under progression, there are limited data with regard to the clinical characteristics of the patients as well as to their prognostic factors 4 . Smoking, to date, has been assumed to be possibly associated with adverse disease prognosis, as extensive evidence has highlighted the negative impact of tobacco use on lung health and its causal association with a plethora of respiratory diseases 5 . Smoking is also detrimental to the immune system and its responsiveness to infections, making smokers more vulnerable to infectious diseases 6 . Previous studies have shown that smokers are twice more likely than non-smokers to contract influenza and have more severe symptoms, while smokers were also noted to have higher mortality in the previous MERS-CoV outbreak 7,8 . Given the gap in the evidence, we conducted a systematic review of studies on COVID-19 that included information on patients’ smoking status to evaluate the association between smoking and COVID-19 outcomes including the severity of the disease, the need for mechanical ventilation, the need for intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization and death. The literature search was conducted on 17 March 2020, using two databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect), with the search terms: [‘smoking’ OR ‘tobacco’ OR ‘risk factors’ OR ‘smoker*’] AND [‘COVID-19’ OR ‘COVID 19’ OR ‘novel coronavirus’ OR ‘sars cov-2’ OR ‘sars cov 2’] and included studies published in 2019 and 2020. Further inclusion criteria were that the studies were in English and referred to humans. We also searched the reference lists of the studies included. A total of 71 studies were retrieved through the search, of which 66 were excluded after full-text screening, leaving five studies that were included. All of the studies were conducted in China, four in Wuhan and one across provinces in mainland China. The populations in all studies were patients with COVID-19, and the sample size ranged from 41 to 1099 patients. With regard to the study design, retrospective and prospective methods were used, and the timeframe of all five studies covered the first two months of the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2019, January 2020). Specifically, Zhou et al. 9 studied the epidemiological characteristics of 191 individuals infected with COVID-19, without, however, reporting in more detail the mortality risk factors and the clinical outcomes of the disease. Among the 191 patients, there were 54 deaths, while 137 survived. Among those that died, 9% were current smokers compared to 4% among those that survived, with no statistically significant difference between the smoking rates of survivors and non-survivors (p=0.21) with regard to mortality from COVID-19. Similarly, Zhang et al. 10 presented clinical characteristics of 140 patients with COVID-19. The results showed that among severe patients (n=58), 3.4% were current smokers and 6.9% were former smokers, in contrast to non-severe patients (n=82) among which 0% were current smokers and 3.7% were former smokers , leading to an OR of 2.23; (95% CI: 0.65–7.63; p=0.2). Huang et al. 11 studied the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 among 41 patients. In this study, none of those who needed to be admitted to an ICU (n=13) was a current smoker. In contrast, three patients from the non-ICU group were current smokers, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups of patients (p=0.31), albeit the small sample size of the study. The largest study population of 1099 patients with COVID-19 was provided by Guan et al. 12 from multiple regions of mainland China. Descriptive results on the smoking status of patients were provided for the 1099 patients, of which 173 had severe symptoms, and 926 had non-severe symptoms. Among the patients with severe symptoms, 16.9% were current smokers and 5.2% were former smokers, in contrast to patients with non-severe symptoms where 11.8% were current smokers and 1.3% were former smokers. Additionally, in the group of patients that either needed mechanical ventilation, admission to an ICU or died, 25.5% were current smokers and 7.6% were former smokers. In contrast, in the group of patients that did not have these adverse outcomes, only 11.8% were current smokers and 1.6% were former smokers. No statistical analysis for evaluating the association between the severity of the disease outcome and smoking status was conducted in that study. Finally, Liu et al. 13 found among their population of 78 patients with COVID-19 that the adverse outcome group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with a history of smoking (27.3%) than the group that showed improvement or stabilization (3.0%), with this difference statistically significant at the p=0.018 level. In their multivariate logistic regression analysis, the history of smoking was a risk factor of disease progression (OR=14.28; 95% CI: 1.58–25.00; p= 0.018). We identified five studies that reported data on the smoking status of patients infected with COVID-19. Notably, in the largest study that assessed severity, there were higher percentages of current and former smokers among patients that needed ICU support, mechanical ventilation or who had died, and a higher percentage of smokers among the severe cases 12 . However, from their published data we can calculate that the smokers were 1.4 times more likely (RR=1.4, 95% CI: 0.98–2.00) to have severe symptoms of COVID-19 and approximately 2.4 times more likely to be admitted to an ICU, need mechanical ventilation or die compared to non-smokers (RR=2.4, 95% CI: 1.43–4.04). In conclusion, although further research is warranted as the weight of the evidence increases, with the limited available data, and although the above results are unadjusted for other factors that may impact disease progression, smoking is most likely associated with the negative progression and adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Table 1 Overview of the five studies included in the systematic review Title Setting Population Study design and time horizon Outcomes Smoking rates by outcome Zhou et al. 9 (2020)Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Pulmonary Hospital, Wuhan, China All adult inpatients (aged ≥18 years) with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 (191 patients) Retrospective multicenter cohort study until 31 January 2020 Mortality 54 patients died during hospitalisation and 137 were discharged Current smokers: n=11 (6%)Non-survivors: n=5 (9%)Survivors: n=6 (4%)(p=0.20) Current smoker vs non-smokerUnivariate logistic regression(OR=2.23; 95% CI: 0.65–7.63; p=0.2) Zhang et al. 10 (2020)Clinical characteristics of 140 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China No. 7 Hospital of Wuhan, China All hospitalised patients clinically diagnosed as ‘viral pneumonia’ based on their clinical symptoms with typical changes in chest radiology (140 patients) Retrospective 16 January to 3 February 2020 Disease Severity Non-severepatients: n=82Severe patients:n=58 Disease Severity Former smokers: n=7Severe: n=4 (6.9%)Non-severe: n=3 (3.7%) (p= 0.448) Current smokers: n=2Severe: n=2 (3.4%)Non-severe: n=0 (0%) Guan et al. 12 (2019)Clinical Characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China 552 hospitals in 30 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in mainland China Patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (1099 patients) Retrospective until 29 January 2020 Severity and admission to an ICU, the use of mechanical ventilation, or death Non-severe patients: n=926 Severe patients: n=173 By severity Severe cases16.9% current smokers5.2% former smokers77.9% never smokers Non-severe cases11.8% current smokers1.3% former smokers86.9% never smokers By mechanical ventilation, ICU or death Needed mechanical ventilation, ICU or died25.8% current smokers7.6% former smokers66.7% non-smokers No mechanical ventilation, ICU or death11.8% current smokers1.6% former smokers86.7% never smokers Huang et al. 11 (2020)Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China A hospital in Wuhan, China Laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV patients in Wuhan (41 patients) Prospective from 16 December 2019 to 2 January 2020 Mortality As of 22 January 2020, 28 (68%) of 41 patients were discharged and 6 (15%) patients died Current smokers: n=3ICU care: n=0Non-ICU care: n=3 (11%) Current smokers in ICU care vs non-ICU care patients (p=0.31) Liu et al. 13 (2019)Analysis of factors associated with disease outcomes in hospitalised patients with 2019 novel coronavirus disease Three tertiary hospitals in Wuhan, China Patients tested positive for COVID-19 (78 patients) Retrospective multicentre cohort study from 30 December 2019 to 15 January 2020 Disease progression 11 patients (14.1%) in the progression group 67 patients (85.9%) in the improvement/stabilization group 2 deaths Negative progression group: 27.3% smokersIn the improvement group: 3% smokers The negative progression group had a significantly higher proportion of patients with a history of smoking than the improvement/stabilisation group (27.3% vs 3.0%)Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that the history of smoking was a risk factor of disease progression (OR=14.28; 95% CI: 1.58–25.00; p= 0.018)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                27 January 2021
                2020
                27 January 2021
                : 8
                : 620748
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Dalhousie University , Halifax, NS, Canada
                [2] 2The Lung Association of Nova Scotia , Halifax, NS, Canada
                [3] 3Department of Psychology, Saint Mary's University , Halifax, NS, Canada
                Author notes

                Edited by: Zisis Kozlakidis, International Agency For Research On Cancer (IARC), France

                Reviewed by: Teresa Summavielle, University of Porto, Portugal; Dimitra Kale, University College London, United Kingdom

                *Correspondence: D. Brett Hopkins brett.hopkins@ 123456dal.ca

                This article was submitted to Infectious Diseases - Surveillance, Prevention and Treatment, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2020.620748
                7874134
                33585389
                ea22af15-4f9a-4ee4-8516-affbc2e26939
                Copyright © 2021 Hopkins and Al-Hamdani.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 October 2020
                : 30 December 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 37, Pages: 7, Words: 5584
                Funding
                Funded by: Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada 10.13039/501100000222
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research

                electronic cigarette,coronavirus,teenager,vaper,substance use

                Comments

                Comment on this article