Carol J Boyd1,2,3, Philip Veliz1,2, Rebecca J Evans-Polce1,2, Andria B Eisman4, Sean Esteban McCabe1,2,5. 1. Center for the Study of Drugs, Alcohol, Smoking and Health, School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. School of Nursing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Addiction Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared estimates of adolescents' nicotine product use and perceptions of harm from two national surveys: Monitoring the Future (MTF) and Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH). We explored one explanation for the different estimates for nicotine product use and adolescents' perceptions of harm. METHOD: We used data source triangulation examining 30-day e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, beliefs about harm, and friends' use of these products in two samples of adolescents from the 2015-2016 MTF and PATH samples. RESULTS: Differences were found, with MTF reporting higher prevalence rates in both past-30-day e-cigarette use (12.4% vs. 6.7%) and cigarette smoking (8.6% vs. 5.1%) when compared with PATH. Differences were significant at the .001 alpha level. MTF respondents were less likely than PATH respondents to view both e-cigarettes (17.7% vs. 48.6%) and cigarettes (75.6% vs. 82.4%) as harmful. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) shows that PATH respondents had significantly lower odds of indicating either e-cigarette (OR = 0.509, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.400, 0.648]) or cigarette smoking (OR = 0.571, 95% CI [0.433, 0.753]) when compared with MTF respondents. However, these differences in e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.849, 95% CI [0.630, 1.144]) and cigarette smoking (AOR = 0.829, 95% CI = [0.578, 1.189]) were mediated when additional predictors were included in the model (i.e., friends use, risk of harm). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences were found between national surveys estimating population rates of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. Data source triangulation allowed for new explanations for several of the disparate nicotine use estimates between MTF and PATH.
OBJECTIVE: We compared estimates of adolescents' nicotine product use and perceptions of harm from two national surveys: Monitoring the Future (MTF) and Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH). We explored one explanation for the different estimates for nicotine product use and adolescents' perceptions of harm. METHOD: We used data source triangulation examining 30-day e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, beliefs about harm, and friends' use of these products in two samples of adolescents from the 2015-2016 MTF and PATH samples. RESULTS: Differences were found, with MTF reporting higher prevalence rates in both past-30-day e-cigarette use (12.4% vs. 6.7%) and cigarette smoking (8.6% vs. 5.1%) when compared with PATH. Differences were significant at the .001 alpha level. MTF respondents were less likely than PATH respondents to view both e-cigarettes (17.7% vs. 48.6%) and cigarettes (75.6% vs. 82.4%) as harmful. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) shows that PATH respondents had significantly lower odds of indicating either e-cigarette (OR = 0.509, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.400, 0.648]) or cigarette smoking (OR = 0.571, 95% CI [0.433, 0.753]) when compared with MTF respondents. However, these differences in e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.849, 95% CI [0.630, 1.144]) and cigarette smoking (AOR = 0.829, 95% CI = [0.578, 1.189]) were mediated when additional predictors were included in the model (i.e., friends use, risk of harm). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences were found between national surveys estimating population rates of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. Data source triangulation allowed for new explanations for several of the disparate nicotine use estimates between MTF and PATH.
Authors: Danice K Eaton; Nancy D Brener; Laura Kann; Maxine M Denniston; Tim McManus; Tonja M Kyle; Alice M Roberts; Katherine H Flint; James G Ross Journal: Eval Rev Date: 2010-04
Authors: Tushar Singh; Sara Kennedy; Kristy Marynak; Alexander Persoskie; Paul Melstrom; Brian A King Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2016-12-30 Impact factor: 17.586
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: 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: Juliet Haarbauer-Krupa; Lydie A Lebrun-Harris; Lindsey I Black; Philip Veliz; Jill Daugherty; Rebecca Desrocher; John Schulenberg; Diane Pilkey; Matthew Breiding Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Philip Baiden; Hannah S Szlyk; Patricia Cavazos-Rehg; Henry K Onyeaka; JaNiene E Peoples; Erin Kasson Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Zongshuan Duan; Yu Wang; Claire A Spears; Shannon R Self-Brown; Scott R Weaver; Pinpin Zheng; Michael P Eriksen; Jidong Huang Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Yu Wang; Zongshuan Duan; Scott R Weaver; Lucy Popova; Claire A Spears; David L Ashley; Terry F Pechacek; Michael P Eriksen; Jidong Huang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Akash Patel; Jana L Hirschtick; Steven Cook; Bukola Usidame; Ritesh Mistry; David T Levy; Rafael Meza; Nancy L Fleischer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 3.390