Sze Lin Yoong1,2, Emily Stockings3, Li Kheng Chai1,4, Flora Tzelepis1,2,4, John Wiggers1,2,4, Christopher Oldmeadow1,4, Christine Paul1,4, Armando Peruga5, Melanie Kingsland1,2,4, John Attia1,4, Luke Wolfenden1,2,4. 1. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New South Wales. 2. Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Local Health District, New South Wales. 3. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Australia, New South Wales. 4. Hunter Medical Research Institute, New South Wales. 5. Centro de Epidemiología y Políticas de Salud (Center for Epidemiology and Health Policies), Facultad de Medicina/CAS, Universidad del Desarrollo, Región Metropolitana, Chile.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and change in prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use in youth by country and combustible smoking status. METHODS: Databases and the grey literature were systematically searched to December 2015. Studies describing the prevalence of ENDS use in the general population aged ≤20 years in a defined geographical region were included. Where multiple estimates were available within countries, prevalence estimates of ENDS use were pooled for each country separately. RESULTS: Data from 27 publications (36 surveys) from 13 countries were included. The prevalence of ENDS ever use in 2013-2015 among youth were highest in Poland (62.1%; 95%CI: 59.9-64.2%), and lowest in Italy (5.9%; 95%CI: 3.3-9.2%). Among non-smoking youth, the prevalence of ENDS ever use in 2013-2015 varied, ranging from 4.2% (95%CI: 3.8-4.6%) in the US to 14.0% in New Zealand (95%CI: 12.7-15.4%). The prevalence of ENDS ever use among current tobacco smoking youth was the highest in Canada (71.9%, 95%CI: 70.9-72.8%) and lowest in Italy (29.9%, 95%CI: 18.5-42.5%). Between 2008 and 2015, ENDS ever use among youth increased in Poland, Korea, New Zealand and the US; decreased in Italy and Canada; and remained stable in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in ENDS use among youth globally across countries and also between current smokers and non-smokers. Implications for public health: Population-level survey data on ENDS use is needed to inform public health policy and messaging globally.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and change in prevalence of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) use in youth by country and combustible smoking status. METHODS: Databases and the grey literature were systematically searched to December 2015. Studies describing the prevalence of ENDS use in the general population aged ≤20 years in a defined geographical region were included. Where multiple estimates were available within countries, prevalence estimates of ENDS use were pooled for each country separately. RESULTS: Data from 27 publications (36 surveys) from 13 countries were included. The prevalence of ENDS ever use in 2013-2015 among youth were highest in Poland (62.1%; 95%CI: 59.9-64.2%), and lowest in Italy (5.9%; 95%CI: 3.3-9.2%). Among non-smoking youth, the prevalence of ENDS ever use in 2013-2015 varied, ranging from 4.2% (95%CI: 3.8-4.6%) in the US to 14.0% in New Zealand (95%CI: 12.7-15.4%). The prevalence of ENDS ever use among current tobacco smoking youth was the highest in Canada (71.9%, 95%CI: 70.9-72.8%) and lowest in Italy (29.9%, 95%CI: 18.5-42.5%). Between 2008 and 2015, ENDS ever use among youth increased in Poland, Korea, New Zealand and the US; decreased in Italy and Canada; and remained stable in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in ENDS use among youth globally across countries and also between current smokers and non-smokers. Implications for public health: Population-level survey data on ENDS use is needed to inform public health policy and messaging globally.
Authors: Alexsandra Ratajczak; Wojciech Feleszko; Danielle M Smith; Maciej Goniewicz Journal: Expert Rev Respir Med Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 3.772
Authors: Mehrak Javadi-Paydar; Tony M Kerr; Eric L Harvey; Maury Cole; Michael A Taffe Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 4.492