Stephen M Amrock1, Joseph Zakhar2, Sherry Zhou2, Michael Weitzman3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY; stephen.amrock@med.nyu.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY; 3. Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY; Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY; Global Institute for Public Health, New York University, New York, NY.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: U.S. adolescents increasingly use e-cigarettes. The perceived harm of e-cigarettes has not been described, nor has the correlation between harm perception and e-cigarette use been assessed. This study examines correlates of e-cigarette harm perception and use of e-cigarettes in a national survey. METHODS: We used cross-sectional nationally representative data from the 2012 National Youth Tobacco Survey (n = 24,658). Cross-tabulations and multivariate ordered probit and logistic regression models were employed to assess relative harm perception and e-cigarette use. RESULTS: Half of U.S. adolescents had heard of e-cigarettes. Of these, 13.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7-14.9) and 4.0% (95% CI = 3.4-4.7) reported ever or currently using e-cigarettes, respectively. Of those aware of e-cigarettes, 34.2% (95% CI = 32.8-35.6) believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes. Among those trying e-cigarettes, 71.8% (95% CI = 69.0-74.5) believed e-cigarettes were comparatively less harmful. Females and those ≥ 17 years old were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as more harmful relative to cigarettes, while on average Whites, users of other tobacco products, and those with family members who used tobacco were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as comparatively safer. Among cigarette-naive e-cigarette users, use of other tobacco products and perceived harm reduction by e-cigarettes were, respectively, on average associated with 1.6 and 4.1 percentage-point increases in e-cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Perception of e-cigarettes as less harmful than conventional cigarettes was associated with increased e-cigarette use, including among cigarette-naive e-cigarette users. These findings should prompt further scientific investigation and merit attention from regulators.
INTRODUCTION: U.S. adolescents increasingly use e-cigarettes. The perceived harm of e-cigarettes has not been described, nor has the correlation between harm perception and e-cigarette use been assessed. This study examines correlates of e-cigarette harm perception and use of e-cigarettes in a national survey. METHODS: We used cross-sectional nationally representative data from the 2012 National Youth Tobacco Survey (n = 24,658). Cross-tabulations and multivariate ordered probit and logistic regression models were employed to assess relative harm perception and e-cigarette use. RESULTS: Half of U.S. adolescents had heard of e-cigarettes. Of these, 13.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7-14.9) and 4.0% (95% CI = 3.4-4.7) reported ever or currently using e-cigarettes, respectively. Of those aware of e-cigarettes, 34.2% (95% CI = 32.8-35.6) believed e-cigarettes were less harmful than cigarettes. Among those trying e-cigarettes, 71.8% (95% CI = 69.0-74.5) believed e-cigarettes were comparatively less harmful. Females and those ≥ 17 years old were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as more harmful relative to cigarettes, while on average Whites, users of other tobacco products, and those with family members who used tobacco were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as comparatively safer. Among cigarette-naive e-cigarette users, use of other tobacco products and perceived harm reduction by e-cigarettes were, respectively, on average associated with 1.6 and 4.1 percentage-point increases in e-cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Perception of e-cigarettes as less harmful than conventional cigarettes was associated with increased e-cigarette use, including among cigarette-naive e-cigarette users. These findings should prompt further scientific investigation and merit attention from regulators.
Authors: Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz; Jakub Knysak; Michal Gawron; Leon Kosmider; Andrzej Sobczak; Jolanta Kurek; Adam Prokopowicz; Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla; Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska; Christopher Havel; Peyton Jacob; Neal Benowitz Journal: Tob Control Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Maria A Parker; Andrea C Villanti; Amanda J Quisenberry; Cassandra A Stanton; Nathan J Doogan; Ryan Redner; Diann E Gaalema; Allison N Kurti; Tyler Nighbor; Megan E Roberts; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: David R Strong; Karen Messer; Martha White; Yuyan Shi; Madison Noble; David B Portnoy; Alexander Persoskie; Annette R Kaufman; Kelvin Choi; Charles Carusi; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Andrew Hyland; John Pierce Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Maria Cooper; Alexandra Loukas; Kathleen R Case; C Nathan Marti; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Kathleen R Case; Dale S Mantey; MeLisa R Creamer; Melissa B Harrell; Steven H Kelder; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-03-30 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Su Hyun Park; Dustin T Duncan; Omar El Shahawy; Lily Lee; Jenni A Shearston; Kosuke Tamura; Scott E Sherman; Michael Weitzman Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 5.043