Asti Jackson1, Grace Kong2, Ran Wu2, Meghan E Morean3, Danielle R Davis2, Deepa R Camenga4, Dana A Cavallo2, Krysten W Bold2, Patricia Simon2, Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin2. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, CMHC, 34 Park Street, New Haven, CT 06519, USA. Electronic address: asti.jackson@yale.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, CMHC, 34 Park Street, New Haven, CT 06519, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, CMHC, 34 Park Street, New Haven, CT 06519, USA; Department of Psychology, Oberlin College, 120 W. Lorain St., Oberlin, OH 44074, USA. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 464 Congress Ave, Ste 260, New Haven, CT 06514, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Preliminary evidence suggests adolescents use e-cigarettes in school. However, little is known about the types of devices that are used in schools, where they are used, and who uses them. Knowledge about these issues is critical to inform school regulations. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 6 Connecticut high schools in 2019. Adolescents reported on current use (past 30-day use) of the following e-cigarette devices inschool: JUUL, any pod system other than JUUL, vape pens, disposables, mods, and on deviceuse in different locations: class, bathroom, hallways, outside on school grounds, and other school locations. Separate binary logistic regressions investigated predictors of use (demographics and past month use frequency of each device) in school for each device. RESULTS: Overall, 45.0% of current users (N = 1447) used e-cigarettes at school. Among users of each device, prevalence of current use at school varied by device with 45.7% reporting JUUL use, 41.3% other pod use, 34.6% vape pen use, 38.3% disposables use and 27.3% mod use. Current users used devices in bathrooms (75.1%), followed by outside on school grounds (52.2%), classrooms (45.7%), hallways (38.8%) and other school locations (11.7%). Greater e-cigarette past month use frequency for each device was associated with device use in school. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to examine use of specific e-cigarette devices in schools and demonstrates that e-cigarette use frequency predicts school use. Despite rules against vaping, e-cigarette use remains prevalent in many school locations, suggesting alternative strategies such as prevention and e-cigarette education are needed.
INTRODUCTION: Preliminary evidence suggests adolescents use e-cigarettes in school. However, little is known about the types of devices that are used in schools, where they are used, and who uses them. Knowledge about these issues is critical to inform school regulations. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were conducted in 6 Connecticut high schools in 2019. Adolescents reported on current use (past 30-day use) of the following e-cigarette devices inschool: JUUL, any pod system other than JUUL, vape pens, disposables, mods, and on deviceuse in different locations: class, bathroom, hallways, outside on school grounds, and other school locations. Separate binary logistic regressions investigated predictors of use (demographics and past month use frequency of each device) in school for each device. RESULTS: Overall, 45.0% of current users (N = 1447) used e-cigarettes at school. Among users of each device, prevalence of current use at school varied by device with 45.7% reporting JUUL use, 41.3% other pod use, 34.6% vape pen use, 38.3% disposables use and 27.3% mod use. Current users used devices in bathrooms (75.1%), followed by outside on school grounds (52.2%), classrooms (45.7%), hallways (38.8%) and other school locations (11.7%). Greater e-cigarette past month use frequency for each device was associated with device use in school. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to examine use of specific e-cigarette devices in schools and demonstrates that e-cigarette use frequency predicts school use. Despite rules against vaping, e-cigarette use remains prevalent in many school locations, suggesting alternative strategies such as prevention and e-cigarette education are needed.
Authors: Meghan E Morean; Deepa R Camenga; Krysten W Bold; Grace Kong; Asti Jackson; Patricia Simon; Dana A Cavallo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-04-21 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Karen A Cullen; Andrea S Gentzke; Michael D Sawdey; Joanne T Chang; Gabriella M Anic; Teresa W Wang; MeLisa R Creamer; Ahmed Jamal; Bridget K Ambrose; Brian A King Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Asti Jackson; Meghan Morean; Grace Kong; Krysten W Bold; Deepa R Camenga; Dana A Cavallo; Patricia Simon; Ran Wu Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Andrea S Gentzke; MeLisa Creamer; Karen A Cullen; Bridget K Ambrose; Gordon Willis; Ahmed Jamal; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Benjamin W Chaffee; Jessica Barrington-Trimis; Fei Liu; Ran Wu; Rob McConnell; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Adam M Leventhal; Grace Kong Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Stephen R Shamblen; Melissa H Abadi; Kirsten T Thompson; Grisel García-Ramírez; Bonnie O Richard Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Stephen R Shamblen; Melissa H Abadi; Kirsten T Thompson; Sharon Lipperman-Kreda; Joel W Grube; Bonnie O Richard Journal: Psychol Addict Behav Date: 2022-01-13
Authors: Grace Kong; Benjamin W Chaffee; Ran Wu; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Feifei Liu; Adam M Leventhal; Rob McConnell; Jessica Barrington-Trimis Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 4.852
Authors: Dale S Mantey; Onyinye Omega-Njemnobi; Felisa A Ruiz; Tara L Vaughn; Steven H Kelder; Andrew E Springer Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2020-12-24 Impact factor: 4.492