Search

Introduction: JUUL, a closed system e-cigarette with disposable pods, is popular among youth, with positive attributes of this product linked to current use by youth. However, many youth try JUUL and do not continue using; understanding differences in the appeal of this device between current users and those who chose not to continue use can inform regulation and prevention efforts. The aim of the current study is to compare JUUL appeal in youth among past users (ie, used, but not in past month) and current users (ie, used in past month).Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in four Connecticut high schools in Spring 2018. This survey assessed JUUL use and reasons for liking/disliking JUUL, including its' pharmacological effects (eg, nicotine "buzz"), product characteristics (eg, flavors), peer influence, appeal compared to other e-cigarettes, and concealability. Logistic regressions were conducted to examine differences in liking/disliking JUUL by use status (past vs. current).Results: Among JUUL users (N = 1374; 43% of total sample), 30.4% were past users and 69.6% were current users. Compared to current users, past users were less likely to like JUUL for positive pharmacological effects (eg, nicotine "buzz"), product characteristics (eg, flavors), and peer use and more likely to dislike JUUL for the adverse pharmacological effects (eg, headache), product characteristics (eg, flavors), and for "other" reasons (open-ended response; eg, perceived harm).Conclusions: Findings suggest that altering JUUL appeal through regulating nicotine content and flavors may be key in policy aimed at shifting youth to become past JUUL users.Implications: This study investigates how current and past youth JUUL users differ in their report of the appeal of JUUL. Past users are less likely to report experiencing positive pharmacological effects and product characteristics of JUUL and are less likely to report appeal due to peer use. Understanding how appeal of JUUL may differ among past and current users can aid in our understanding of how to regulate these products so that they are less appealing to current youth users. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Prevalence estimates of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use may underestimate actual use in youth. Confusion resulting from the fact that a multitude of devices (eg, vape pens, JUULs) fall under the umbrella term "e-cigarettes," the use of different names to refer to e-cigarettes (eg, vapes, electronic vaping devices), and the use of different terminology to refer to e-cigarette use (eg, "vaping," "JUULing"), may lead some young e-cigarette users to incorrectly indicate nonuse. Therefore, we compared rates of endorsing lifetime e-cigarette use when adolescents were asked about lifetime e-cigarette use in two different ways.Methods: In May to June 2018, a total of 1960 students from two high schools in Connecticut completed a computerized, school-based survey. Participants first reported on lifetime "e-cigarette" use and, subsequently, on lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices: disposables, cig-a-likes, or E-hookahs; vape pens or Egos; JUULs; pod systems other than JUULs such as PHIX or Suorin; and advanced personal vaporizers or mods.Results: In total, 35.8% of students endorsed lifetime "e-cigarette" use, whereas 51.3% endorsed lifetime use of at least one e-cigarette device. The kappa statistic indicated only 66.6% agreement between the methods of assessing e-cigarette use. Overall, 31.5% of adolescents who endorsed lifetime device use did not endorse lifetime "e-cigarette" use, although rates of discordant responding varied across subgroups of interest (eg, sex, race).Conclusions: Assessing adolescents' use of specific e-cigarette devices likely yields more accurate results than assessing the use of "e-cigarettes." If these findings are replicated in a nationally representative sample, regulatory efforts requiring all e-cigarette devices to be clearly labeled as "e-cigarettes" may help to reduce confusion.Implications: Different prevalence estimates of lifetime e-cigarette use were obtained depending on the way that prevalence was assessed. Specifically, fewer adolescents (35.8%) endorsed lifetime e-cigarette use when they were asked "Have you ever tried an e-cigarette, even one or two puffs?" than when they were queried about lifetime use of five different e-cigarette devices (51.3%). Among those who endorsed lifetime use of at least one specific e-cigarette device, 31.5% did not endorse lifetime "e-cigarette" use. These findings suggest that when assessing adolescents' lifetime e-cigarette use, using of terms referring to specific devices likely produces more accurate prevalence estimates than using the term "e-cigarettes." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To understand whether using a certain e-cigarette device is more strongly associated with risk of combustible tobacco use among youth.Methods: We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses using cross-sectional data from 4 samples of youth in Connecticut and California (N = 10,482; ages 13-24), separately for each study using the total sample and the sample of past-month e-cigarette users, to understand the association between e-cigarette device type and past-month combustible tobacco use, while controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, school, and past-month marijuana use. Then, we conducted meta-analyses to calculate pooled associations for adolescents, young adults, and all individuals combined.Results: Among the total sample, combustible tobacco use was associated with any e-cigarette device use (vs. no e-cigarette use) in the pooled analysis across all studies. Among past-month e-cigarette users, combustible tobacco use across all studies was 15.8%- 61.5%. Pooled associations among past-month e-cigarette users showed that using disposable devices (vs. pods; AOR=2.83, 95% CI: 1.73-4.61) and multiple devices most frequently (vs. pods; AOR=2.13, 95% CI: 1.16-3.90) was associated with greater odds of combustible tobacco use. Pooled associations also found that using multiple devices (vs. a single device) in the past month was associated with greater odds of combustible tobacco use (AOR 2.33, 95% CI: 1.74, 3.14).Discussion: Using disposable e-cigarettes and multiple devices is associated with greater likelihood of combustible tobacco use among e-cigarette using youth. Future research should elucidate the trajectory of e-cigarette device used and combustible tobacco use among youth to inform prevention and product regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

E-cigarette use among adolescents and young adults has been associated with adverse respiratory symptoms, including symptoms of asthma and bronchitis. This investigation examined whether such associations differ by primary type of e-cigarette device used. This cross-sectional study included data from four study populations in California and Connecticut, United States, ages 13-21 years (N = 10,483), who self-reported their tobacco use behaviors and health status from 2018 to 2020. Adverse respiratory symptoms were grouped as bronchitis, asthma exacerbation, and shortness of breath. Associations with e-cigarette use were examined by frequency of e-cigarette use (regardless of device type) and most-frequently use device type in the past 30 days (pod, pen/tank, disposable, or mod). Multivariable modeling accounted for demographic variables and use of other tobacco and cannabis. Results were pooled at the study level via random-effects meta-analysis. Across the four studies, e-cigarette use >5 days/month versus never use was associated with bronchitic symptoms (summary odds ratio, sOR: 1.56; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.37, 1.77) and shortness of breath (sOR: 1.68; 95% CI: 1.35, 2.08) but not statistically significantly with asthma exacerbations (sOR: 1.36; 95% CI; 0.95, 1.95). Among past 30-day e-cigarette users, associations with respiratory symptoms did not differ by device type. In these populations, e-cigarette use was positively associated with symptoms of bronchitis and shortness of breath, but adjusted odds of symptoms did not differ meaningfully by device type. These findings suggest that risk of these respiratory outcomes is elevated among more frequent e-cigarette users regardless of device type used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Adolescent e-cigarette use has increased recently; however, little is known about trends in use of specific devices by youth. This study aims to 1) compare rates of e-cigarette device use over time, 2) examine changes in frequency of device use, and 3) identify predictors of device use.Methods: Cross-sectional surveys were distributed school-wide across 4 diverse Connecticut high-schools in 2017, 2018, 2019 and assessed current (i.e., past-30-day) use of various e-cigarette devices: disposables/cig-a-likes, vape pens, mods, JUULs, and other rechargeable pod devices (added in 2018 and 2019). Analyses compared rates of device use and frequency (i.e., number of days used in past 30) over time. Multivariable logistic regression models examined demographic and tobacco use characteristics (e.g., age first trying e-cigarettes) as predictors of current use of each device type in 2019.Results: From 2017-2019, rates of using JUUL, disposables/cig-a-likes, and vape pens increased significantly, while use of mods and other pod devices decreased (ps<.001). Over 59 % of youth reported using more than one e-cigarette device in 2019. Over time, more youth were frequent users (using ≥20 out of 30 days) of disposable/cig-a-likes (32 % to >46 %) and JUUL (28 % to >35 %) devices. In multivariable models, first trying e-cigarettes at a younger age was associated with current use of disposable/cig-a-like, vape pens, mods, and other rechargeable pod devices.Conclusions: From 2017-2019, JUUL, disposable/cig-a-like, and vape pens increased in popularity and were used frequently. Tobacco regulations designed to reduce youth use should consider various device types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]