• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >Content Analysis of Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Publications in Core Clinical Journals from 2012 to 2018
【2h】

Content Analysis of Electronic Nicotine Delivery System Publications in Core Clinical Journals from 2012 to 2018

机译：2012年至2018年核心临床期刊电子尼古丁传送系统出版物的内容分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

There is no consensus if electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) should be used to reduce harm among the smoking population. Physicians, who represent a trusted source of health communication, are exposed to a range of often conflicting ENDS information and this information may be relayed to patients looking to quit smoking. Previous studies have examined ENDS content of various sources of media but there is a lack of knowledge about ENDS content in medical journals. We analyzed 421 ENDS publications printed between 2012 and 2018 from PubMed’s Core Clinical Journal list. Publications were analyzed based on publication type, journal type, study design, geographic focus, theme, terminology, outcomes, and positiveegative statements. The number of ENDS publications grew since 2012, and peaked in 2015. Across all years, negative statements about ENDS outnumbered positive statements, though this difference decreased over time. Over time, negative statements about “toxins and carcinogens” were made less frequently, while negative statements about “gateway effects” and “youth appeal” became more prevalent. UK journals had fewer negative statements relative to US journals. Only 12.6% of publications included guidance for healthcare professionals about ENDS. As published ENDS topics change over time, physicians’ communications with patients may be impacted.
机译：是否应使用电子尼古丁传送系统（ENDS）来减少吸烟人群的危害尚无共识。代表健康交流的可信赖来源的内科医生被暴露于一系列经常相互冲突的ENDS信息中，并且该信息可能会传达给希望戒烟的患者。先前的研究已经检查了各种媒体来源的ENDS内容，但是医学期刊中对ENDS内容的了解不足。我们从PubMed的《核心临床期刊》列表中分析了2012年至2018年之间印刷的421种ENDS出版物。根据出版物类型，期刊类型，研究设计，地理重点，主题，术语，结果和正面/负面陈述对出版物进行分析。自2012年以来，ENDS出版物的数量有所增加，并在2015年达到顶峰。在所有年份中，关于ENDS的负面陈述都超过了正面陈述，尽管随着时间的推移，这种差异有所减少。随着时间的流逝，关于“毒素和致癌物”的负面陈述越来越少，而关于“网关效应”和“青年吸引力”的负面陈述变得越来越普遍。与美国期刊相比，英国期刊的负面陈述较少。只有12.6％的出版物包含针对ENDS的医疗保健专业人员指南。随着已发布的ENDS主题随时间变化，医生与患者的沟通可能会受到影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号