The knowledge, concerns and healthcare practices among physicians regarding electronic cigarettes.
The knowledge, concerns and healthcare practices among physicians regarding electronic cigarettes.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/20009666.2017.1343076
复制
发表时间：
2017-07
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Santosh S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kanchustambham V;Saladi S;Rodrigues J;Fernandes H;Patolia S;Santosh S
背景：电子烟（e-香烟）是一种提供雾化尼古丁的电池供电设备。由于易于获取和非处方药，许多患者考虑使用电子烟来戒烟。很少有研究关注电子烟的长期安全性/有效性以及医生的知识/态度。医生没有足够的指南来向患者提供有关电子烟的建议。目的：1）了解医护人员对电子烟的知识和态度。 2）确定培训水平、经验和专业对电子烟知识和实践的影响。 3) 确定影响电子烟建议/处方实践的因素。 方法：向圣路易斯大学 (SLU) 医院预选专业的住院医师、研究员和教职人员发送匿名在线调查问卷。结果：我们收到 115 份回复。 9% 的人表示“非常熟悉”电子烟，25% 的人表示不熟悉；如果患者询问，18% 的医生会建议使用电子烟作为尼古丁替代疗法； 91% 的人知道电子烟的尼古丁含量，但只有 20% 和 39% 的人分别知道其中存在致癌物质和聚乙二醇。只有 63% 的受访者知道“vape”的含义。缺乏长期安全性证据（76%）、电子烟作为非吸烟者的入门产品（50%）、缺乏食品和药物管理局（FDA）法规（51%）以及针对青少年的营销（42%）是主要问题。更严格的法规（54%）、类似于烟草产品的警告标签（53%）、限制广告（36%）、禁止向未成年人销售（34%）以及禁止在公共场所使用（25%）被视为监管措施。超过 50% 的医生将电子烟视为“减少危害策略”的一部分。结论：需要进一步研究来评估电子烟是否可以成为有效的戒烟工具。医生之间存在明显的知识匮乏，迫切需要基于证据的指南来帮助为询问电子烟的患者提供建议。
Background: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-powered devices that deliver aerosolized nicotine. With easy access and over-the-counter availability, many patients consider using electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Few studies have looked at long-term safety/efficacy and physician knowledge/attitudes toward e-cigarettes. Physicians have insufficient guidelines for advising their patients about e-cigarettes. Objective: 1) To identify knowledge and attitude of health care practitioners toward electronic cigarettes. 2) To identify the effect of level of training, experience and speciality on knowledge and practice of electronic cigarettes. 3) To identify factors influencing electronic cigarettes advise/prescribing practice. Methods: An anonymous online questionnaire was sent to residents, fellows, and faculty in pre-selected specialties at Saint Louis University (SLU) Hospital. Results: We received 115 responses. Nine percent reported being ‘very familiar’ with e-cigarettes, while 25% reported no familiarity; 18% of physicians would advise e-cigarettes as nicotine-replacement therapy if asked by patients; 91% were aware of the nicotine content of e-cigarettes, but only 20% and 39%, respectively, were aware of the presence of carcinogens and polyethylene glycol. Only 63% of respondents knew what ‘vape’ meant. Lack of evidence regarding long-term safety (76%), e-cigarettes as starter products for nonsmokers (50%), absence of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations (51%) and marketing to youth (42%) were major concerns. Stricter regulations (54%), warning labels similar to tobacco products (53%), restricting advertising (36%), banning sales to minors (34%), and banning use in public spaces (25%) were favored as regulatory measures. More than 50% of physicians see a role for e-cigarettes as part of ‘harm-reduction strategy’. Conclusions: Further research is needed to assess whether e- cigarettes could be an effective smoking-cessation tool. There is an apparent knowledge deficit among physicians and an urgent need for evidence-based guidelines to aid with advising patients enquiring about e-cigarettes.