Maria Cooper1, Alexandra Loukas2, Melissa B Harrell1, Cheryl L Perry1. 1. a University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston , School of Public Health, Austin Regional Campus , Austin , Texas , USA. 2. b Department of Kinesiology and Health Education , University of Texas at Austin , Austin , Texas , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As conventional cigarette use is declining, electronic cigarette ("e-cigarette") use is rising and is especially high among college students. Few studies examine dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes among this population. This study explores the relationship between dual and exclusive e-cigarette / cigarette use and perceptions of harm and addictiveness of both products. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of data from students attending 24 colleges in Texas (n=5,482). Multinomial logistic regression was employed to test the association between current e-cigarette / cigarette use and perceived harm and addictiveness of both products. Three tobacco groups were included: cigarette only users, e-cigarette only users, and dual users. RESULTS: Dual users reported lower perceived harm of e-cigarettes most consistently (p<0.001, all comparisons). Perceived harm of cigarettes was significantly lower among cigarette only and dual users only, compared to non-users (p<0.001, all comparisons). Compared to non-users, all three groups reported significantly lower perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes (p<0.001, all comparisons). The same finding was observed for perceived addictiveness of cigarettes, though findings were less consistent for the e-cigarette only group (p<0.02, all comparisons except one). CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate that among college students, perceptions of harm and addictiveness of e-cigarettes are lower than those for conventional cigarettes. For both products, perceptions of harm and addictiveness were lower among exclusive and dual users, compared to non-users.
BACKGROUND: As conventional cigarette use is declining, electronic cigarette ("e-cigarette") use is rising and is especially high among college students. Few studies examine dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes among this population. This study explores the relationship between dual and exclusive e-cigarette / cigarette use and perceptions of harm and addictiveness of both products. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of data from students attending 24 colleges in Texas (n=5,482). Multinomial logistic regression was employed to test the association between current e-cigarette / cigarette use and perceived harm and addictiveness of both products. Three tobacco groups were included: cigarette only users, e-cigarette only users, and dual users. RESULTS: Dual users reported lower perceived harm of e-cigarettes most consistently (p<0.001, all comparisons). Perceived harm of cigarettes was significantly lower among cigarette only and dual users only, compared to non-users (p<0.001, all comparisons). Compared to non-users, all three groups reported significantly lower perceived addictiveness of e-cigarettes (p<0.001, all comparisons). The same finding was observed for perceived addictiveness of cigarettes, though findings were less consistent for the e-cigarette only group (p<0.02, all comparisons except one). CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate that among college students, perceptions of harm and addictiveness of e-cigarettes are lower than those for conventional cigarettes. For both products, perceptions of harm and addictiveness were lower among exclusive and dual users, compared to non-users.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alternative tobacco use; electronic cigarettes; tobacco use; young adults
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Thomas P McCoy; Holly E R Morrell; Bettina B Hoeppner; Mark Wolfson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Carolina P Ramôa; Marzena M Hiler; Tory R Spindle; Alexa A Lopez; Nareg Karaoghlanian; Thokozeni Lipato; Alison B Breland; Alan Shihadeh; Thomas Eissenberg Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 7.552
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: Jan van der Tempel; Aliya Noormohamed; Robert Schwartz; Cameron Norman; Muhannad Malas; Laurie Zawertailo Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Laura A Gibson; MeLisa R Creamer; Alison B Breland; Aida Luz Giachello; Annette Kaufman; Grace Kong; Terry F Pechacek; Jessica K Pepper; Eric K Soule; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; MeLisa R Creamer; Benjamin W Chaffee; Jennifer B Unger; Erin L Sutfin; Grace Kong; Ce Shang; Stephanie L Clendennen; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Irene Pericot-Valverde; Rebecca J Elliott; Jeff S Priest; Trace Barret; Jin H Yoon; Charles C Miller; Chizimuzo T C Okoli; Ilana Haliwa; Philip A Ades; Diann E Gaalema Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Yasir Abbasi; Marie-Claire Van Hout; Mohamed Faragalla; Lynn Itani Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-26 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Christine M Kava; Eric K Soule; Laura Seegmiller; Emily Gold; William Snipes; Taya Westfield; Noah Wick; Rima Afifi Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2020-11-19