Julia Cen Chen-Sankey1, Jennifer B Unger2, Maansi Bansal-Travers3, Jeff Niederdeppe4, Edward Bernat5, Kelvin Choi6. 1. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, Maryland; julia.chen-sankey@nih.gov. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York. 4. Department of Communication, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; and. 5. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. 6. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, Bethesda, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has become increasingly prevalent among US youth and young adults in recent years. Exposure to e-cigarette marketing may stimulate e-cigarette use. In this study, we estimated the longitudinal association between e-cigarette marketing exposure and e-cigarette experimentation among US youth and young adult never tobacco users. METHODS: The analysis included nationally representative samples of youth (ages 12-17; n = 8121) and young adult (ages 18-24; n = 1683) never tobacco users from wave 2 (2014-2015) and wave 3 (2015-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. In the study, researchers measured past-month exposure to e-cigarette marketing through various places (eg, Web sites and events) at wave 2 and e-cigarette experimentation at wave 3. Statistical analysis included multivariable regressions to examine the associations between wave 2 e-cigarette marketing exposure and wave 3 e-cigarette experimentation. RESULTS: At wave 2, 70.7% of youth and 73.9% of young adult never tobacco users reported past-month exposure to e-cigarette marketing; at wave 3, 4.9% and 4.5% of youth and young adults experimented with e-cigarettes, respectively. Youth and young adults exposed to e-cigarette marketing at wave 2 were more likely (adjusted odds ratio = 1.53, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.17; and adjusted odds ratio = 2.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.16-6.42, respectively) to have experimented with e-cigarettes at wave 3 than those not exposed. Marketing exposure through each place at wave 2 was associated with e-cigarette experimentation at wave 3. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette marketing exposure predicted subsequent e-cigarette experimentation among youth and young adult never tobacco users. Increased restrictions on marketing through various channels may help minimize their exposure to e-cigarette marketing messages.
OBJECTIVES: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has become increasingly prevalent among US youth and young adults in recent years. Exposure to e-cigarette marketing may stimulate e-cigarette use. In this study, we estimated the longitudinal association between e-cigarette marketing exposure and e-cigarette experimentation among US youth and young adult never tobacco users. METHODS: The analysis included nationally representative samples of youth (ages 12-17; n = 8121) and young adult (ages 18-24; n = 1683) never tobacco users from wave 2 (2014-2015) and wave 3 (2015-2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. In the study, researchers measured past-month exposure to e-cigarette marketing through various places (eg, Web sites and events) at wave 2 and e-cigarette experimentation at wave 3. Statistical analysis included multivariable regressions to examine the associations between wave 2 e-cigarette marketing exposure and wave 3 e-cigarette experimentation. RESULTS: At wave 2, 70.7% of youth and 73.9% of young adult never tobacco users reported past-month exposure to e-cigarette marketing; at wave 3, 4.9% and 4.5% of youth and young adults experimented with e-cigarettes, respectively. Youth and young adults exposed to e-cigarette marketing at wave 2 were more likely (adjusted odds ratio = 1.53, 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.17; and adjusted odds ratio = 2.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.16-6.42, respectively) to have experimented with e-cigarettes at wave 3 than those not exposed. Marketing exposure through each place at wave 2 was associated with e-cigarette experimentation at wave 3. CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarette marketing exposure predicted subsequent e-cigarette experimentation among youth and young adult never tobacco users. Increased restrictions on marketing through various channels may help minimize their exposure to e-cigarette marketing messages.
Authors: Matthew C Farrelly; Jennifer C Duke; Erik C Crankshaw; Matthew E Eggers; Youn O Lee; James M Nonnemaker; Annice E Kim; Lauren Porter Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Michael D Sawdey; Hannah R Day; Blair Coleman; Lisa D Gardner; Sarah E Johnson; Jean Limpert; Hoda T Hammad; Maciej L Goniewicz; David B Abrams; Cassandra A Stanton; Jennifer L Pearson; Annette R Kaufman; Heather L Kimmel; Cristine D Delnevo; Wilson M Compton; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Raymond S Niaura; Andrew Hyland; Bridget K Ambrose Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Frederick X Gibbons; Elizabeth A Pomery; Meg Gerrard; James D Sargent; Chih-Yuan Weng; Thomas A Wills; John Kingsbury; Sonya Dal Cin; Keilah A Worth; Mike Stoolmiller; Susanne E Tanski; Hsiu-Chen Yeh Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2010-12
Authors: Kevin P Conway; Victoria R Green; Karin A Kasza; Marushka L Silveira; Nicolette Borek; Heather L Kimmel; James D Sargent; Cassandra Stanton; Elizabeth Lambert; Nahla Hilmi; Chad J Reissig; Kia J Jackson; Susanne E Tanski; David Maklan; Andrew J Hyland; Wilson M Compton Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 4.492
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: Juhan Lee; Andy S L Tan; Lauren Porter; Kelly C Young-Wolff; Lisa Carter-Harris; Ramzi G Salloum Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Allison L Groom; Thanh-Huyen T Vu; Robyn L Landry; Anshula Kesh; Joy L Hart; Kandi L Walker; Lindsey A Wood; Rose Marie Robertson; Thomas J Payne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Xiao Li; Jacob T Borodovsky; Erin Kasson; Nina Kaiser; Raven Riordan; Andrea Fentem; Patricia A Cavazos-Rehg Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-08-04 Impact factor: 4.018