English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective:  This study is the first to examine the influence of e-cigarette emission phrasing on perceived harm of secondhand exposure, and whether harm perception was associated with support for a tobacco-free campus policy.  Participants:  In the fall 2018 and spring 2019 semesters, 52 sections of a college English course (N = 791 students) were cluster randomized to one of three conditions (“vapor,” “aerosol,” or “chemicals”) assessing harm of secondhand exposure to e-cigarette emissions.  Methods:  Regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, tobacco use, and other potential confounders.  Results:  Compared to the “vapor” condition, “chemicals” and “aerosol” conditions were associated with increased odds of perceiving secondhand exposure to e-cigarettes to be harmful/very harmful (AOR = 2.0,  p  &lt; 0.01). Greater perceived harm of secondhand e-cigarette exposure was associated with increased odds of supporting a tobacco-free campus policy (AOR = 2.22,  p  &lt; 0.001).  Conclusions:  Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.

Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy