Literature DB >> 28160661

Measuring youth beliefs about the harms of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco compared to cigarettes.

Alexander Persoskie1, Erin Keely O'Brien2, Anh B Nguyen2, Cindy Tworek2.   

Abstract

This study examined validity of direct and indirect measures of perceived harm of e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco (SLT) compared to cigarettes. On direct measures, people compare one product to another, whereas on indirect measures, people rate each product separately and the researcher compares these ratings. Data from youth in Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013-2014) were analyzed (N=13,651 youth aged 12-17years). The study included direct measures of perceived harm of e-cigarettes and SLT compared to cigarettes, and indirect measures were created by comparing ratings of the products. Weighted multinomial logistic regressions tested criterion validity by assessing whether direct and indirect measures were associated with criterion variables, including use of e-cigarettes and SLT. Youth were more likely to rate e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes on the indirect measure (67.3%) than the direct measure (50.2%). The same pattern held for ratings of SLT as less harmful than cigarettes (indirect: 29.7%; direct: 11.7%). Direct measures explained unique variance in product use criterion variables even after adjusting for indirect measures, as did indirect measures after adjusting for direct measures. However, the criterion variables were more often associated with the direct measures than the indirect measures. Results offer preliminary support for using both direct and indirect measures when assessing youth's perceived relative harm of various types of products. However, if researchers cannot include both direct and indirect measures in a study, associations with product use criterion variables support prioritizing direct measures. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  E-cigarettes; Measurement; Perceived harm; Risk perception; Smokeless; Tobacco; Validity

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28160661      PMCID: PMC5359056          DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.01.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Addict Behav        ISSN: 0306-4603            Impact factor:   3.913


  36 in total

1.  Biases in social comparative judgments: the role of nonmotivated factors in above-average and comparative-optimism effects.

Authors:  John R Chambers; Paul D Windschitl
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Perceptions of relative risk of snus and cigarettes among US smokers.

Authors:  Lucy Popova; Pamela M Ling
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 3.  Electronic nicotine delivery system (electronic cigarette) awareness, use, reactions and beliefs: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jessica K Pepper; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  Comparison of Direct and Indirect Measures of E-cigarette Risk Perceptions.

Authors:  Olivia A Wackowski; Michelle T Bover Manderski; Cristine D Delnevo
Journal:  Tob Regul Sci       Date:  2016-01-01

5.  Electronic cigarette use by college students.

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

6.  Receptivity to e-cigarette marketing, harm perceptions, and e-cigarette use.

Authors:  Pallav Pokhrel; Pebbles Fagan; Lisa Kehl; Thaddeus A Herzog
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2015-01

7.  Psychosocial Factors Associated With Adolescent Electronic Cigarette and Cigarette Use.

Authors:  Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Kiros Berhane; Jennifer B Unger; Tess Boley Cruz; Jimi Huh; Adam M Leventhal; Robert Urman; Kejia Wang; Steve Howland; Tamika D Gilreath; Chih-Ping Chou; Mary Ann Pentz; Rob McConnell
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students--United States, 2011-2015.

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

9.  Deficiencies in public understanding about tobacco harm reduction: results from a United States national survey.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Lynn T Kozlowski
Journal:  Harm Reduct J       Date:  2015-07-02

10.  Multiple tobacco product use among US adolescents and young adults.

Authors:  Samir Soneji; James Sargent; Susanne Tanski
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 7.552

View more
  12 in total

1.  Tobacco Product Harm Perceptions and New Use.

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

2.  Youth perception of harm and addictiveness of tobacco products: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (Wave 1).

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

3.  Impact of menthol on nicotine intake and preference in mice: Concentration, sex, and age differences.

Authors:  Deniz Bagdas; Asti Jackson; Moriah Carper; Rita Yu-Tzu Chen; Lois S Akinola; M Imad Damaj
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 5.250

4.  Predictors of Smokeless Tobacco Susceptibility, Initiation, and Progression Over Time Among Adolescents in a Rural Cohort.

Authors:  Benjamin W Chaffee; Elizabeth T Couch; Janelle Urata; Stuart A Gansky; Gwen Essex; Jing Cheng
Journal:  Subst Use Misuse       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 2.164

5.  Harm perceptions and tobacco use initiation among youth in Wave 1 and 2 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study.

Authors:  David R Strong; Eric Leas; Tara Elton-Marshall; Olivia A Wackowski; Mark Travers; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Andrew Hyland; Martha White; Madison Noble; K Michael Cummings; Kristie Taylor; Annette R Kaufman; Kelvin Choi; John P Pierce
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Cigarette and Smokeless Tobacco Perception Differences of Rural Male Youth.

Authors:  Benjamin W Chaffee; Jing Cheng
Journal:  Tob Regul Sci       Date:  2018-07-01

7.  Developing and Validating Measures of Absolute and Relative E-Cigarette Product Risk Perceptions: Single Items Can Be Surprisingly Comprehensive.

Authors:  Erin Keely O'Brien; Sabeeh A Baig; Alexander Persoskie
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2022-02-14       Impact factor: 5.825

8.  German Public Support for Tobacco Control Policy Measures: Results from the German Study on Tobacco Use (DEBRA), a Representative National Survey.

Authors:  Melanie Boeckmann; Daniel Kotz; Lion Shahab; Jamie Brown; Sabrina Kastaun
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-04-07       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Harm perceptions of electronic cigarettes and nicotine: A nationally representative cross-sectional survey of young people in Great Britain.

Authors:  Katherine East; Leonie S Brose; Ann McNeill; Hazel Cheeseman; Deborah Arnott; Sara C Hitchman
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2018-10-02       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Perceived risk of electronic cigarettes compared with combustible cigarettes: direct versus indirect questioning.

Authors:  Victoria Churchill; Amy L Nyman; Scott R Weaver; Bo Yang; Jidong Huang; Lucy Popova
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 7.552

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.