4.4 Article

E-cigarette devices used by high-school youth

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 194, Issue -, Pages 395-400

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.10.022

Keywords

E-cigarette; Device; Youth; JUUL

Funding

  1. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) [P50DA036151]
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background E-cigarette use rates are high among youth, but there is limited information on the types of e-cigarette devices that are used by youth. Methods During Spring 2017, students from 4 high schools completed surveys on use of e-cigarette devices (cig-a-like, vape/hookah pen, modified devices or mods, and JUUL). Among youth who endorsed ever (lifetime) use of an e-cigarette and of at least one device (n = 875), we assessed 1) prevalence rates of ever and current (past-month) use of each device, 2) use of nicotine in each device, and 3) predictors [age, sex, race, socio-economic status (SES), other tobacco use] of ever use of each device and of use of single versus multiple devices. Results Cig-a-likes were used least frequently (Ever use: cig-a-likes: 25.4%; vape/hookah pens: 60.6%; JUUL: 64.2%; mods: 71.2%; Current use: cig-a-likes: 7.3%; vape/hookah pens; 18.7%; mods: 33.1%; JUUL: 47.1%;). Nicotine use was highest for JUUL (JUUL: 80.3%; mods: 56.3%; cig-a-likes: 51.4%; vape/hookah pens: 46.8%). Among ever users of single devices, use of JUUL was highest (JUUL: 43%; mods: 32%; vape/hookah pens: 21%; cig-a-likes: 4%). Ever use of all devices, except JUUL, was associated with other tobacco product use. Ever use of JUUL was associated with higher SES. Ever use of multiple devices (two: 34.7%; three: 25.8%; four: 11.7%) compared with a single device (27.8%) was associated with other tobacco product use. Conclusions Targeted regulatory and prevention efforts that consider the use of multiple e-cigarette devices are needed to lower youth e-cigarette use rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available