INTRODUCTION: Prevalence estimates of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use may underestimate actual use in youth. Confusion resulting from the fact that a multitude of devices (eg, vape pens, JUULs) fall under the umbrella term "e-cigarettes," the use of different names to refer to e-cigarettes (eg, vapes, electronic vaping devices), and the use of different terminology to refer to e-cigarette use (eg, "vaping," "JUULing"), may lead some young e-cigarette users to incorrectly indicate nonuse. Therefore, we compared rates of endorsing lifetime e-cigarette use when adolescents were asked about lifetime e-cigarette use in two different ways. METHODS: In May to June 2018, a total of 1960 students from two high schools in Connecticut completed a computerized, school-based survey. Participants first reported on lifetime "e-cigarette" use and, subsequently, on lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices: disposables, cig-a-likes, or E-hookahs; vape pens or Egos; JUULs; pod systems other than JUULs such as PHIX or Suorin; and advanced personal vaporizers or mods. RESULTS: In total, 35.8% of students endorsed lifetime "e-cigarette" use, whereas 51.3% endorsed lifetime use of at least one e-cigarette device. The kappa statistic indicated only 66.6% agreement between the methods of assessing e-cigarette use. Overall, 31.5% of adolescents who endorsed lifetime device use did not endorse lifetime "e-cigarette" use, although rates of discordant responding varied across subgroups of interest (eg, sex, race). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing adolescents' use of specific e-cigarette devices likely yields more accurate results than assessing the use of "e-cigarettes." If these findings are replicated in a nationally representative sample, regulatory efforts requiring all e-cigarette devices to be clearly labeled as "e-cigarettes" may help to reduce confusion. IMPLICATIONS: Different prevalence estimates of lifetime e-cigarette use were obtained depending on the way that prevalence was assessed. Specifically, fewer adolescents (35.8%) endorsed lifetime e-cigarette use when they were asked "Have you ever tried an e-cigarette, even one or two puffs?" than when they were queried about lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices (51.3%). Among those who endorsed lifetime use of at least one specific e-cigarette device, 31.5% did not endorse lifetime "e-cigarette" use. These findings suggest that when assessing adolescents' lifetime e-cigarette use, using of terms referring to specific devices likely produces more accurate prevalence estimates than using the term "e-cigarettes."
INTRODUCTION: Prevalence estimates of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use may underestimate actual use in youth. Confusion resulting from the fact that a multitude of devices (eg, vape pens, JUULs) fall under the umbrella term "e-cigarettes," the use of different names to refer to e-cigarettes (eg, vapes, electronic vaping devices), and the use of different terminology to refer to e-cigarette use (eg, "vaping," "JUULing"), may lead some young e-cigarette users to incorrectly indicate nonuse. Therefore, we compared rates of endorsing lifetime e-cigarette use when adolescents were asked about lifetime e-cigarette use in two different ways. METHODS: In May to June 2018, a total of 1960 students from two high schools in Connecticut completed a computerized, school-based survey. Participants first reported on lifetime "e-cigarette" use and, subsequently, on lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices: disposables, cig-a-likes, or E-hookahs; vape pens or Egos; JUULs; pod systems other than JUULs such as PHIX or Suorin; and advanced personal vaporizers or mods. RESULTS: In total, 35.8% of students endorsed lifetime "e-cigarette" use, whereas 51.3% endorsed lifetime use of at least one e-cigarette device. The kappa statistic indicated only 66.6% agreement between the methods of assessing e-cigarette use. Overall, 31.5% of adolescents who endorsed lifetime device use did not endorse lifetime "e-cigarette" use, although rates of discordant responding varied across subgroups of interest (eg, sex, race). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing adolescents' use of specific e-cigarette devices likely yields more accurate results than assessing the use of "e-cigarettes." If these findings are replicated in a nationally representative sample, regulatory efforts requiring all e-cigarette devices to be clearly labeled as "e-cigarettes" may help to reduce confusion. IMPLICATIONS: Different prevalence estimates of lifetime e-cigarette use were obtained depending on the way that prevalence was assessed. Specifically, fewer adolescents (35.8%) endorsed lifetime e-cigarette use when they were asked "Have you ever tried an e-cigarette, even one or two puffs?" than when they were queried about lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices (51.3%). Among those who endorsed lifetime use of at least one specific e-cigarette device, 31.5% did not endorse lifetime "e-cigarette" use. These findings suggest that when assessing adolescents' lifetime e-cigarette use, using of terms referring to specific devices likely produces more accurate prevalence estimates than using the term "e-cigarettes."
Authors: Amanda L Johnson; Andrea C Villanti; Allison M Glasser; Jennifer L Pearson; Cristine D Delnevo Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Cristine D Delnevo; Daniel A Gundersen; Michelle T B Manderski; Daniel P Giovenco; Gary A Giovino Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Meghan E Morean; Grace Kong; Dana A Cavallo; Deepa R Camenga; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ahmed Jamal; Andrea Gentzke; S Sean Hu; Karen A Cullen; Benjamin J Apelberg; David M Homa; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Aslesha Sumbe; Stephanie L Clendennen; Samuel C Opara; Christian D Jackson; Baojiang Chen; Anna V Wilkinson; Melissa B Harrell Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Asti Jackson; Grace Kong; Ran Wu; Meghan E Morean; Danielle R Davis; Deepa R Camenga; Dana A Cavallo; Krysten W Bold; Patricia Simon; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2020-06-21 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Meghan E Morean; Krysten W Bold; Grace Kong; Ralitza Gueorguieva; Deepa R Camenga; Patricia Simon; Asti Jackson; Dana A Cavallo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-08-24 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Ce Shang; Scott R Weaver; Justin S White; Jidong Huang; James Nonnemaker; Kai-Wen Cheng; Frank J Chaloupka Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2020-01