Querying About the Use of Specific E-cigarette Devices May Enhance Accurate Measurement of E-cigaret
Thursday, January 3, 2019
Posted by: Natalia Gromov
Meghan E Morean, Deepa R Camenga, Krysten W Bold, Grace Kong, Asti Jackson, Patricia Simon, Dana A Cavallo, Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin.
Querying About the Use of Specific E-cigarette Devices May Enhance Accurate Measurement of E-cigarette Prevalence Rates among High School Students.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, nty240, https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty240
Prevalence estimates of e-cigarette use may underestimate actual use in youth. Confusion resulting from the fact that a multitude of devices (e.g., vape-pens, JUULs) fall under the umbrella term “e-cigarettes,” the use of different names to refer to e-cigarettes (e.g., vapes, electronic vaping devices), and the use of different terminology to refer to e-cigarette use (e.g., “vaping,” “JUULing”) may lead some young e-cigarette users to incorrectly indicate non-use. Therefore, we compared rates of endorsing lifetime e-cigarette use when adolescents were asked about lifetime e-cigarette use in two different ways. In May-June 2018, 1960 students from 2 Connecticut high schools completed a computerized, school-based survey. Participants first reported on lifetime “e-cigarette” use and, subsequently, on lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices: Disposables, Cig-a-Likes, or E-hookahs; Vape pens or Egos; JUULs; pod systems other than JUULs like PHIX or Suorin; and Advanced Personal Vaporizers/Mods. 35.8% of students endorsed lifetime “e-cigarette” use, while 51.3% endorsed lifetime use of 1 e-cigarette device. The kappa statistic indicated only 66.6% agreement between the methods of assessing e-cigarette use. Overall, 31.5% of adolescents who endorsed lifetime device use did not endorse lifetime “e-cigarette” use, although rates of discordant responding varied across subgroups of interest (e.g., sex, race). Assessing adolescents’ use of specific e-cigarette devices likely yields more accurate results than assessing the use of “e-cigarettes.” If these findings are replicated in a nationally representative sample, regulatory efforts requiring all e-cigarette devices to be clearly labeled as “e-cigarettes” may help to reduce confusion. Different prevalence estimates of lifetime e-cigarette use were obtained depending on the way that prevalence was assessed. Specifically, fewer adolescents (35.8%) endorsed lifetime e-cigarette use when they were asked “Have you ever tried an e-cigarette, even one or two puffs?” than when they were queried about lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices (51.3%). Among those who endorsed lifetime use of 1 specific e-cigarette device, 31.5% did not endorse lifetime “e-cigarette” use. These findings suggest that when assessing adolescents’ lifetime e-cigarette use, using of terms referring to specific devices likely produces more accurate prevalence estimates than using the term “e-cigarettes.”
|
|
Email to a Friend