BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To estimate progression to polytobacco use (PTU) over 1 year among a sample of US youth. DESIGN: Prospective survey with two waves 1 year apart: wave 1 (2013-14) and wave 2 (2014-15). We conducted latent transition analysis (LTA) to identify latent class transitions and examine socio-demographic predictors of transition types. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11, 996 people who were aged 12-17 years at wave 1. MEASUREMENTS: Publicly available data were used from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study, a nationally representative sample of US civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years and older. Tobacco use status was assessed and classified in terms of: never use, non-current (not in the past 30 days) and current (past 30-day) use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, hookah and smokeless tobacco. Other nicotine products were excluded because rates of use were either too low to model (e.g. pipe) or the product was not assessed in the PATH youth sample (e.g. nicotine replacement products). FINDINGS: We identified three distinct patterns: class 1, non-use (wave 1 prevalence = 86%; wave 2 prevalence = 78%); class 2, ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes (wave 1 prevalence = 11%; wave 2 prevalence = 14%); and class 3, current PTU (wave 1 prevalence = 4%; wave 2 prevalence = 7%). Probability of progression from non-use to ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes was 0.06 and ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes to current PTU was 0.32. Non-users were more likely to transition to ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes if they were older (versus younger), white (versus non-white) or if their parental education level was high school or less (versus more than high school); and ever users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes to current PTU if they were older, male or white. CONCLUSIONS: US youth who had previously tried e-cigarettes and cigarettes at wave 1 (2013-14) had a 32% chance of transitioning to current use of two or more tobacco products within 1 year.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To estimate progression to polytobacco use (PTU) over 1 year among a sample of US youth. DESIGN: Prospective survey with two waves 1 year apart: wave 1 (2013-14) and wave 2 (2014-15). We conducted latent transition analysis (LTA) to identify latent class transitions and examine socio-demographic predictors of transition types. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11, 996 people who were aged 12-17 years at wave 1. MEASUREMENTS: Publicly available data were used from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study, a nationally representative sample of US civilian, non-institutionalized population aged 12 years and older. Tobacco use status was assessed and classified in terms of: never use, non-current (not in the past 30 days) and current (past 30-day) use of cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, hookah and smokeless tobacco. Other nicotine products were excluded because rates of use were either too low to model (e.g. pipe) or the product was not assessed in the PATH youth sample (e.g. nicotine replacement products). FINDINGS: We identified three distinct patterns: class 1, non-use (wave 1 prevalence = 86%; wave 2 prevalence = 78%); class 2, ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes (wave 1 prevalence = 11%; wave 2 prevalence = 14%); and class 3, current PTU (wave 1 prevalence = 4%; wave 2 prevalence = 7%). Probability of progression from non-use to ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes was 0.06 and ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes to current PTU was 0.32. Non-users were more likely to transition to ever use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes if they were older (versus younger), white (versus non-white) or if their parental education level was high school or less (versus more than high school); and ever users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes to current PTU if they were older, male or white. CONCLUSIONS: US youth who had previously tried e-cigarettes and cigarettes at wave 1 (2013-14) had a 32% chance of transitioning to current use of two or more tobacco products within 1 year.
Authors: Patricia Simon; Deepa R Camenga; Grace Kong; Christian M Connell; Meghan E Morean; Dana A Cavallo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2017-01-01
Authors: Karin A Kasza; Bridget K Ambrose; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Kristie Taylor; Maciej L Goniewicz; K Michael Cummings; Eva Sharma; Jennifer L Pearson; Victoria R Green; Annette R Kaufman; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Mark J Travers; Jonathan Kwan; Cindy Tworek; Yu-Ching Cheng; Ling Yang; Nikolas Pharris-Ciurej; Dana M van Bemmel; Cathy L Backinger; Wilson M Compton; Andrew J Hyland Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tamika D Gilreath; Adam Leventhal; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Jennifer B Unger; Tess Boley Cruz; Kiros Berhane; Jimi Huh; Robert Urman; Kejia Wang; Steve Howland; Mary Ann Pentz; Chih Ping Chou; Rob McConnell Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Bridget K Ambrose; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Elizabeth Lambert; Charles Carusi; Kristie Taylor; Scott Crosse; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; David Abrams; John P Pierce; James Sargent; Karen Messer; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Ray Niaura; Donna Vallone; David Hammond; Nahla Hilmi; Jonathan Kwan; Andrea Piesse; Graham Kalton; Sharon Lohr; Nick Pharris-Ciurej; Victoria Castleman; Victoria R Green; Greta Tessman; Annette Kaufman; Charles Lawrence; Dana M van Bemmel; Heather L Kimmel; Ben Blount; Ling Yang; Barbara O'Brien; Cindy Tworek; Derek Alberding; Lynn C Hull; Yu-Ching Cheng; David Maklan; Cathy L Backinger; Wilson M Compton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Karen A Cullen; Bridget K Ambrose; Andrea S Gentzke; Benjamin J Apelberg; Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Katelyn F Romm; Margaret G Childers; Ashley E Douglas; Bethany C Bray; Geri Dino; Melissa D Blank Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.492