Search

Background and aims Reports of youth e-cigarette use often do not disaggregate by underlying smoking status. This study compared annual 2014–19 youth estimates of past 30-day e-cigarette use prevalence and frequency by smoking status in the United States. Design Nationally representative, cross-sectional, school-based survey [National Youth Tobacco Surveys (NYTS)]. General linear models accounting for complex survey design compared e-cigarette use prevalence by smoking status by year, overall and stratified by frequency, separately for high school (HS) and middle school (MS) students. The 2019 survey was analyzed separately because of its change in survey methodology. Setting MSs and HSs in the United States. Participants A total of 116 704 students from 1268 schools, ages 9–19. Measurements Students self-reported (paper 2014–18, electronic 2019) ever and past 30-day (current) use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, as well as frequent use (20–30 days of month). Findings From 2014 to 2018, current e-cigarette use prevalence increased among never, current and former smokers in HS, but only among never and current smokers in MS (each P-value < 0.001). E-cigarette use increases for current HS smokers were primarily among frequent e-cigarette users. In 2018, the absolute number of HS frequent users who were never or former smokers (420 000 combined) surpassed current smokers (370 000). In 2019, current e-cigarette use prevalence for never, former and current smokers was 17.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 16.0–19.0], 53.6% (95% CI = 45.2–61.9) and 85.8% (95% CI = 81.6–89.9) for HS students, respectively, and 6.8% (95% CI = 5.9–7.7), 40.8% (95% CI = 34.7–47.0) and 78.0% (95% CI = 71.9–84.2) for MS students. That year, the number of HS never (420 000) and former smokers (570 000) using e-cigarettes frequently eclipsed that of current smokers (390 000). Conclusions E-cigarette use prevalence and frequency among youth vary by smoking status, with highest levels of use among current smokers. However frequent e-cigarette use among never smokers and former smokers has increased.

The Joint ICES/EUROMARINE Workshop on Common Conceptual Mapping Methodologies (WKCCMM) aimed to advance approaches to support inter- and transdisciplinary science via qualitative conceptual models to inform Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) throughout Eu-ropean seas and beyond. The workshop focused on developing a common understanding of conceptual mapping meth-odologies, their key uses and limitations, and processes for effective conceptual modelling with stakeholders for a variety of applications (e.g. developing food-webs, socio-ecological modelling, scoping exercises, rapid/initial management action and/or impact evaluations). Discussion in-volved presentation and discussion of a range of conceptual modelling approaches and contexts through the examination of case studies. These case studies gave rise to a suite of recommenda-tions, including the development of a workflow for IEA, and more generic guidelines and best practice advice for the use of conceptual modelling approaches with stakeholders. Although stakeholders were not able to be included in this workshop, they were very much at the heart of discussions, with the challenges and good practices of stakeholder inclusion addressed. WKCCMM also investigated how the methodologies can be best used to contribute to IEA, and may otherwise be applied throughout the ICES community, including identifying opportunities for cross-collaboration and knowledge transfer within the network. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

In recent decades, scientists and practitioners have increasingly focused on identifying and codifying the best ways to manage activities in marine systems, leading to the development and implementation of concepts such as the social-ecological systems approach, ecosystem-based management, integrated management, marine spatial planning, participatory co-management, and the precautionary approach. To date, these concepts appear as separate entities: they have parallel literature streams; have been applied most often individually in attempts to improve governance and management; and in many ways, seem to be competing for attention. This patchwork of approaches may be hindering effective ocean governance. We propose that desirable features from these frameworks could be woven together to form the basis of more effective and equitable ocean governance arrangements across contexts, sectors, and scales. This article synthesizes the efforts of an IMBeR (Integrated Marine Biosphere Research Project) conference session and working group, that brought together experts in these diverse concepts with the objective of producing a synthesis of how they could be more effectively integrated for improved ocean sustainability outcomes. We reviewed and compared the concepts in terms of (a) the need to achieve a comprehensive suite of sustainability objectives, (b) similarities and differences in their scope, and (c) their place in practical management, policy and regulation. Achieving greater cross-sectoral integration, or a more holistic perspective on management for sustainability is at the core of each concept. All deal with aspects of governance and most, with improved participation in governance. The major differences in the origin and historical application of each concept are reflected in the degree of implicit or explicit focus given to different objectives of sustainability. Overall, the concepts are especially strong for ecological and institutional or governance considerations, moderately strong for economic aspects, and weakest for the social-cultural pillar of full spectrum sustainability. There is no panacea, and no emergent hierarchy among concepts. Some concepts fit better with top-down legislation-based efforts, others with more bottom-up stakeholder driven efforts. The selection of the core concepts for a situation will depend in a large part on which concepts are specified, or demand focus, in the legal and policy context of the situation (or area) of interest. No matter how influential or dominant a single concept might be, pragmatically, different concepts will be used in different areas, and there may always be the need for a combination of concepts and objectives woven together to achieve a cohesive quilt of sustainability.

Additional file 1: Supplement 1. Mathematical formulation of the SAVM model. Supplement 2. Estimation of the Switch Rate from Cigarette to NVP Use. Supplement 3. Further validation of the model.