INTRODUCTION: Identifying youth at risk for future e-cigarette use is critical for informing prevention efforts. Prior research established measures of susceptibility to conventional cigarettes, and this study aimed to examine whether items adapted for e-cigarette susceptibility predicted subsequent e-cigarette use among never e-cigarette users. METHODS: Longitudinal school-wide survey data were collected from middle and high school students in Fall 2013 (wave 1) and Spring 2014 (wave 2). Among never e-cigarette users at wave 1 (n = 1720), e-cigarette susceptibility was measured by two items assessing anticipation of experimenting with e-cigarettes in the future and willingness to use an e-cigarette if offered by a best friend. Logistic regression models examined susceptibility as a predictor of e-cigarette initiation and past 30-day use 6 months later at wave 2. Models were clustered by school and controlled for sex, age, race, SES, and other substance use (alcohol, marijuana, and other tobacco). RESULTS: In total, 8.9% (n = 153) of youth initiated e-cigarettes and 3.7% (n = 63) reported past 30-day use at wave 2. E-cigarette susceptibility was a significant independent predictor of subsequent initiation (OR = 4.27, 95% CI = 3.12-5.85) and past 30-day e-cigarette use (OR = 5.10, 95%CI = 3.38-7.68) 6 months later. Susceptible youth were more likely to be male, older, and have used alcohol, marijuana, or other tobacco products. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide initial support for adapting two susceptibility items to identify adolescents at risk for future e-cigarette use. Identifying strategies that are effective for targeting susceptible youth and preventing future e-cigarette use will be critical areas for future research. IMPLICATIONS: More than a quarter of the sample who reported both a willingness to try e-cigarettes if offered by a best friend and anticipation of experimenting with e-cigarettes in the future went on to try e-cigarettes within the academic year, suggesting that targeting this group will be critical for preventing youth e-cigarette initiation. There were notable demographic differences between susceptible and non-susceptible youth, suggesting targeting e-cigarette prevention efforts to male students who have used other substances may be especially important for preventing future e-cigarette use. Research is needed to determine the most effective prevention strategies to reach susceptible youth.
INTRODUCTION: Identifying youth at risk for future e-cigarette use is critical for informing prevention efforts. Prior research established measures of susceptibility to conventional cigarettes, and this study aimed to examine whether items adapted for e-cigarette susceptibility predicted subsequent e-cigarette use among never e-cigarette users. METHODS: Longitudinal school-wide survey data were collected from middle and high school students in Fall 2013 (wave 1) and Spring 2014 (wave 2). Among never e-cigarette users at wave 1 (n = 1720), e-cigarette susceptibility was measured by two items assessing anticipation of experimenting with e-cigarettes in the future and willingness to use an e-cigarette if offered by a best friend. Logistic regression models examined susceptibility as a predictor of e-cigarette initiation and past 30-day use 6 months later at wave 2. Models were clustered by school and controlled for sex, age, race, SES, and other substance use (alcohol, marijuana, and other tobacco). RESULTS: In total, 8.9% (n = 153) of youth initiated e-cigarettes and 3.7% (n = 63) reported past 30-day use at wave 2. E-cigarette susceptibility was a significant independent predictor of subsequent initiation (OR = 4.27, 95% CI = 3.12-5.85) and past 30-day e-cigarette use (OR = 5.10, 95%CI = 3.38-7.68) 6 months later. Susceptible youth were more likely to be male, older, and have used alcohol, marijuana, or other tobacco products. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide initial support for adapting two susceptibility items to identify adolescents at risk for future e-cigarette use. Identifying strategies that are effective for targeting susceptible youth and preventing future e-cigarette use will be critical areas for future research. IMPLICATIONS: More than a quarter of the sample who reported both a willingness to try e-cigarettes if offered by a best friend and anticipation of experimenting with e-cigarettes in the future went on to try e-cigarettes within the academic year, suggesting that targeting this group will be critical for preventing youth e-cigarette initiation. There were notable demographic differences between susceptible and non-susceptible youth, suggesting targeting e-cigarette prevention efforts to male students who have used other substances may be especially important for preventing future e-cigarette use. Research is needed to determine the most effective prevention strategies to reach susceptible youth.
Authors: Grace Kong; Meghan E Morean; Dana A Cavallo; Deepa R Camenga; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: M L Saddleson; L T Kozlowski; G A Giovino; L W Hawk; J M Murphy; M G MacLean; M L Goniewicz; G G Homish; B H Wrotniak; M C Mahoney Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Dale S Mantey; Maria R Cooper; Stephanie L Clendennen; Keryn E Pasch; Cheryl L Perry Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Tushar Singh; René A Arrazola; Catherine G Corey; Corinne G Husten; Linda J Neff; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 17.586
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: Steven H Kelder; Dale S Mantey; Duncan Van Dusen; Kathleen Case; Alexandra Haas; Andrew E Springer Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Samir Soneji; John P Pierce; Kelvin Choi; David B Portnoy; Katherine A Margolis; Cassandra A Stanton; Rhonda J Moore; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Charles Carusi; Andrew Hyland; James Sargent Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Mary Ann Pentz; Kimberly D Hieftje; Tyra M Pendergrass; Stephanie A Brito; Mengyu Liu; Trisha Arora; Hilary A Tindle; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Lynn E Fiellin Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Joanne Delk; Felicia R Carey; Kathleen R Case; MeLisa R Creamer; Anna V Wilkinson; Cheryl L Perry; Melissa B Harrell Journal: Am J Health Behav Date: 2019-01-01