Background: As e-cigarette use rises among U.S. adolescents, the need to understand its risk factors becomes increasingly urgent. If the risk profile of adolescents who exclusively use e-cigarettes differs from those who use traditional tobacco products and dual users, prevention and intervention efforts would need to target such differences. Methods: In a sample of 708 adolescents, this study compared individual, peer, and family risk factors that are classically associated with greater substance use between exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional tobacco product users. Results: Exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional tobacco product users share many risk factors when compared to non-users. Additional analyses compared exclusive e-cigarette users to exclusive traditional tobacco users and dual users, with some differences emerging. Lower friend (OR = 0.28, 99% CI [0.12, 0.67]) and peer e-cigarette use (OR = 0.26, 99% CI [0.13, 0.52]), and greater friend cigarette smoking (OR = 2.17, 99% CI [1.23, 3.83]) predicted higher odds of being an exclusive traditional tobacco user compared to an exclusive e-cigarette user. Lower SES (OR = 0.67, 99% CI [0.51, 0.90]), and greater friend (OR = 2.68, 99% CI [1.56, 4.59]) and peer cigarette smoking (OR = 1.91, 99% CI [1.17, 3.13]) predicted greater odds of being a dual user compared to an exclusive e-cigarette user. Conclusion: Although some differences exist between exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional tobacco users, their risk profiles are generally the same. Prevention and intervention efforts that target traditional tobacco product could guide efforts to target e-cigarette use and dual use. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2021.1899236.
Background: As e-cigarette use rises among U.S. adolescents, the need to understand its risk factors becomes increasingly urgent. If the risk profile of adolescents who exclusively use e-cigarettes differs from those who use traditional tobacco products and dual users, prevention and intervention efforts would need to target such differences. Methods: In a sample of 708 adolescents, this study compared individual, peer, and family risk factors that are classically associated with greater substance use between exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional tobacco product users. Results: Exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional tobacco product users share many risk factors when compared to non-users. Additional analyses compared exclusive e-cigarette users to exclusive traditional tobacco users and dual users, with some differences emerging. Lower friend (OR = 0.28, 99% CI [0.12, 0.67]) and peer e-cigarette use (OR = 0.26, 99% CI [0.13, 0.52]), and greater friend cigarette smoking (OR = 2.17, 99% CI [1.23, 3.83]) predicted higher odds of being an exclusive traditional tobacco user compared to an exclusive e-cigarette user. Lower SES (OR = 0.67, 99% CI [0.51, 0.90]), and greater friend (OR = 2.68, 99% CI [1.56, 4.59]) and peer cigarette smoking (OR = 1.91, 99% CI [1.17, 3.13]) predicted greater odds of being a dual user compared to an exclusive e-cigarette user. Conclusion: Although some differences exist between exclusive e-cigarette users and traditional tobacco users, their risk profiles are generally the same. Prevention and intervention efforts that target traditional tobacco product could guide efforts to target e-cigarette use and dual use. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2021.1899236.
Authors: James F Thrasher; Erika N Abad-Vivero; Inti Barrientos-Gutíerrez; Rosaura Pérez-Hernández; Luz Miriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Raúl Mejía; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Mauricio Hernández-Ávila; James D Sargent Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Douglas K Owens; Karina W Davidson; Alex H Krist; Michael J Barry; Michael Cabana; Aaron B Caughey; Susan J Curry; Katrina Donahue; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; Martha Kubik; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Lori Pbert; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-04-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Patricia Simon; Deepa R Camenga; Meghan E Morean; Grace Kong; Krysten W Bold; Dana A Cavallo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Samir Soneji; Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Thomas A Wills; Adam M Leventhal; Jennifer B Unger; Laura A Gibson; JaeWon Yang; Brian A Primack; Judy A Andrews; Richard A Miech; Tory R Spindle; Danielle M Dick; Thomas Eissenberg; Robert C Hornik; Rui Dang; James D Sargent Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 16.193