Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39546077›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2025

Comparing self-rated health among exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional cigarette smokers: an analysis of the Health Survey for England 2019.

Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi, Duaa Abdullah Bafail

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Associations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with life satisfaction and self-rated health: quantifying the subjective burden in a population-based study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yusuff Adebayo AdebisiCollege of Social Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. y.adebisi.1@research.gla.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2381-0984
Duaa Abdullah BafailDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The health implications of e-cigarette use compared to traditional cigarette smoking continue to attract significant public health interest. This study examines self-rated health (SRH) outcomes among exclusive e-cigarette users versus exclusive traditional cigarette smokers, using data from the Health Survey for England 2019. From an initial sample of 10,299 participants, the study focused on 8204 adults, excluding those aged 0-15. Further refinement to exclusive nicotine product users led to 274 e-cigarette users and 1017 cigarette smokers, after excluding dual users, never users, ex-users, non-responders, and users of other tobacco products such as pipes and cigars. SRH was derived from participants' responses to a question asking how they rated their general health, with five possible options: "very good", "good", "fair", "bad", and "very bad". For the purposes of this study, these responses were collapsed into two categories: "Good Health" (combining "very good" and "good") and "Poor Health" (combining "fair", "bad", and "very bad"). Consequently, 834 participants were classified as reporting good health, while 457 reported poor health. Binary logistic regression, adjusted for factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, residence, education, body mass index, alcohol use, age started smoking, physical or mental health conditions, and frequency of GP visits, revealed that exclusive e-cigarette users were significantly more likely to report good health compared to exclusive cigarette smokers, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.59 (95% CI: 1.10 - 2.32, p = 0.014). As a sensitivity analysis, a generalized ordered logistic regression model was performed using the original five SRH categories. The adjusted model confirmed consistent results, with exclusive e-cigarette users showing higher odds of reporting better health across the full range of SRH outcomes (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.08-1.82, p = 0.011). These findings suggest that exclusive e-cigarette users perceive their health more positively than traditional cigarette smokers, contributing useful insights to the discussions around harm reduction strategies.

Indexed as

Cigarette SmokingDiagnostic Self EvaluationHealth StatusSmokersAdolescentAdultAgedElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsEnglandFemaleHealth SurveysHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedSelf ReportCross-sectional studyE-cigarettesHarm reductionSelf-rated healthTraditional cigarette smoking

Identifiers

PMID39546077
PMCPMC11950125

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.