Sociodemographic Differences in E-Cigarette Uptake and Perceptions of Harm.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
This study aimed to evaluate socioeconomic and racial/ethnic differences in e-cigarette uptake and harm perceptions about e-cigarettes among adults who smoke cigarettes in the U.S.Methods
Five waves of the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2013-2019) were used to assess transitions from exclusive cigarette smoking to (1) exclusive e-cigarette use, (2) dual use, and (3) nonuse of either product (N=7,172). Analyses (conducted in 2022) estimated differences in transitions and e-cigarette harm perceptions by race/ethnicity, income, and education.Results
Hispanic (OR=0.32; 95% CI=0.18, 0.54) and Black (OR=0.38; 95% CI=0.22, 0.65) adults were less likely than White adults to transition from exclusive cigarette to exclusive e-cigarette use after 1 year. Adults with a bachelor's degree (versus those with less than high school) (OR=2.57; 95% CI=1.49, 4.45) and adults making ≥$100,000/year (versus those making <$10,000) (OR=3.61; 95% CI=2.10, 6.22) were more likely to transition from exclusive cigarette to exclusive e-cigarette use. Hispanic and Black adults and those with lower income and education were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as equally or more harmful than cigarettes, which in turn was associated with lower odds of transitioning from exclusive cigarette smoking to exclusive e-cigarette use (OR=0.62; 95% CI=0.47, 0.81).Conclusions
Adults who were Hispanic, were Black, and/or had lower SES were less likely to use e-cigarettes to quit cigarettes. Findings provide preliminary evidence that differences in harm perceptions may contribute to disparities in e-cigarette transitions.
SUBMITTER: Harlow AF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10440280 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Sociodemographic Differences in E-Cigarette Uptake and Perceptions of Harm.
Harlow Alyssa F AF Xie Wubin W Goghari Aboli R AR Lundberg Dielle J DJ Raquib Rafeya V RV Berlowitz Jonathan B JB Stokes Andrew C AC
American journal of preventive medicine 20230315 3
<h4>Introduction</h4>This study aimed to evaluate socioeconomic and racial/ethnic differences in e-cigarette uptake and harm perceptions about e-cigarettes among adults who smoke cigarettes in the U.S.<h4>Methods</h4>Five waves of the U.S. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study (2013-2019) were used to assess transitions from exclusive cigarette smoking to (1) exclusive e-cigarette use, (2) dual use, and (3) nonuse of either product (N=7,172). Analyses (conducted in 2022) estimated di ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among youth. Although harm perceptions have been linked to youth e-cigarette use, little research focuses on vulnerable populations, such as Appalachian youth. This study examines associations between e-cigarette harm perceptions and tobacco use among a sample of Appalachian youth. Using data from the 2014-2016 Youth Appalachian Tobacco Study (n=1074), distributions of six e-cigarette harm perceptions by tobacco use (never, ever non-e-cigarette, ever e-cigarette) were examined, and multivariable multinomial logistic regression was used. Nearly one-fourth (23.4%) of the sample were ever e-cigarette users. More e-cigarette users were male (53.4%) and in high school (57.0%). Fewer e-cigarette users strongly agreed that e-cigarettes cause health problems (15.1%), breathing problems (20.3%), and oral health problems (18.7%) and that e-cigarettes are addictive (25.1%), compared to never and non-e-cigarette users. More e-cigarette users strongly agreed (32.3%) that e-cigarettes are healthier alternatives to cigarettes compared to never (24.1%) and non-e-cigarette (25.7%) users. Regression models indicate that e-cigarette users had greater odds of strongly disagreeing with e-cigarettes being harmful or addictive, compared to never users. E-cigarette users had approximately six-fold odds of strongly disagreeing with e-cigarettes causing health problems (OR=6.12; 95% CI: 3.16-11.90) and two times greater odds of disagreeing with e-cigarettes being addictive (OR=2.09; 95% CI: 1.07-4.08) compared to never users. Appalachian youth ever e-cigarette users perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful and less addictive compared to never users. Better informing youth, especially youth tobacco users, of the harms associated with e-cigarettes is vital.
| S-EPMC8411871 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Although existing evidence indicates that e-cigarette use is a risk factor for cigarette smoking initiation, mechanisms of this association are not yet known. E-cigarette users perceive e-cigarette use to be less harmful relative to conventional cigarettes, but their absolute perceptions of addictiveness of conventional cigarette smoking are unknown. This study examines how e-cigarette users compare with nonusers (non-e-cigarette users/nonconventional cigarette smokers), conventional cigarette smokers, and dual users on perceptions of harm and the addictiveness of conventional cigarette smoking and on other known predictors of cigarette smoking such as peer smoking, influence of antismoking ads, and risk-taking propensity. METHODS:National samples of 8th- and 10th-grade students from 2014 and 2015 (N?=?14,151) were obtained from the Monitoring the Future Study. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine relationships between adolescent smoking status and perceptions of harm and the addictiveness of conventional cigarette smoking while controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS:E-cigarette users had lower perceptions of the addictiveness of conventional cigarette smoking compared with nonusers but higher than cigarette smokers and dual users. E-cigarette users reported lower influence by antismoking ads, more conventional cigarette-smoking peers, and greater risk-taking propensity than nonusers. E-cigarette users and cigarette smokers did not differ in their perceived harm of conventional cigarette smoking or in their risk-taking propensity. CONCLUSIONS:E-cigarette users' attitudes and perceptions regarding conventional cigarette smoking may leave them vulnerable to becoming conventional cigarette smokers. Future studies should explore the prospective relationship between smoking-related perceptions of conventional cigarette smoking among e-cigarette users and the onset of cigarette smoking.
| S-EPMC5742072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionE-cigarettes are popular and unregulated. Patient-provider communications concerning e-cigarettes were characterized to identify patient concerns, provider advice and attitudes, and research needs.MethodsAn observational study of online patient-provider communications was conducted January 2011-June 2015 from a network providing free medical advice, and analyzed July 2014-May 2016. Patient and provider themes, and provider attitudes toward e-cigarettes (positive, negative, or neutral) were coded qualitatively. Provider attitudes were analyzed with cumulative logit modeling to account for clustering. Patient satisfaction with provider responses was expressed via a Thank function.ResultsAn increase in e-cigarette-related questions was observed over time. Patient questions (N=512) primarily concerned specific side effects and harms (34%); general safety (27%); e-cigarettes as quit aids (19%); comparison of e-cigarette harms relative to combusted tobacco (18%); use with pre-existing medical conditions (18%); and nicotine-free e-cigarettes (14%). Half of provider responses discussed e-cigarettes as a harm reduction option (48%); 26% discussed them as quit aids. Overall, 47% of providers' responses represented a negative attitude toward e-cigarettes; 33% were neutral (contradictory or non-committal); and 20% were positive. Attitudes did not differ statistically by medical specialty; provider responses positive toward e-cigarettes received significantly more Thanks.ConclusionsExamination of online patient-provider communications provides insight into consumer health experience with emerging alternative tobacco products. Patient concerns largely related to harms and safety, and patients preferred provider responses positively inclined toward e-cigarettes. Lacking conclusive evidence of e-cigarette safety or efficacy, healthcare providers encouraged smoking cessation and recommended first-line cessation treatment approaches.
| S-EPMC5118131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:This study assessed adolescents' harm and addiction perceptions of the highest-selling brand-JUUL-of the most commonly used tobacco product-electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes)-among adolescents in the United States. METHODS:A cross-sectional online survey assessed use and perceptions of the harmfulness and addictiveness of the JUUL e-cigarette and conventional tobacco cigarettes in a nationally representative sample of 9865 adolescents aged 13-17 years in the United States. Associations between adolescents' harm and addiction perceptions and their use of a JUUL e-cigarette were examined through multinomial logistic regression models. RESULTS:Overall, 6.1% and 9.3% of adolescents believed daily use and occasional use of a JUUL e-cigarette, respectively, would cause them no harm. Around 11.3% believed they would either never experience harm from using a JUUL e-cigarette or they could use a JUUL e-cigarette for at least 20 years before experiencing any harm, and 7.3% believed they would be "very unlikely" to become addicted to using a JUUL e-cigarette. Overall, 39.3% and 29.3% of adolescents perceived the JUUL e-cigarette as "less harmful" and "less addictive" than conventional cigarettes, respectively. Compared to never users of the JUUL e-cigarette, current and former users held significantly lower harm and addiction perceptions of the JUUL e-cigarette on all measures. CONCLUSIONS:The majority of adolescents believed using a JUUL e-cigarette would put them at, at least, some risk for experiencing health problems and addiction. A smaller but significant proportion believed they could use a JUUL e-cigarette without ever being harmed by or becoming addicted to the JUUL e-cigarette. IMPLICATIONS:The study reports adolescents' perceptions of the harmfulness and addictiveness of the highest-selling brand of the most commonly used tobacco product among youth in the United States. Though the majority of adolescents correctly believed that using a JUUL e-cigarette would put them at, at least, some risk for experiencing health problems and addiction, a small proportion believed that using a JUUL e-cigarette would be risk free. Correcting such risk-free perceptions may reduce adolescents' interest in trying and continuing to use JUUL e-cigarettes.
| S-EPMC7171269 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study examined the effect of message source credibility on e-cigarette harm perceptions among U.S. young adults. An online experimental study was conducted where young adults (n = 302, Mage = 23.7) were randomized to an e-cigarette public health education message from an expert or a peer young adult. Then, participants answered questions about their perceptions about the message source and e-cigarettes. Results suggest that young adults rated experts as a more credible source (vs. peer) (b = -0.39, SE = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.67, -0.10], p < 0.01). Young adults reported greater perceived credibility of the expert message (vs. peer), which was associated with increased e-cigarette harm perceptions. Increased perceived source credibility mediated the association of increased e-cigarette absolute harm perceptions from viewing an expert message (b = -0.11, SE = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.20, -0.02). Source credibility should be considered when designing e-cigarette education messages for young adults.
| S-EPMC9329714 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsExposure to chemicals contributes to harm from nicotine products, and e-cigarette communications often refer to chemicals. However, while e-cigarette studies commonly measure perceived harmfulness of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes, few have assessed comparative perceptions about chemicals. This study measured perceived levels of harmful chemicals in e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes and associations with e-cigarette/cigarette relative harm perceptions, e-cigarette use and interest.Design, setting and participantsThis was an on-line cross-sectional survey of adults/young adults from a nationally representative research panel in the United States conducted in January 2021. Participants were independent samples of 1018 adults who smoked cigarettes and 1051 young adult non-smokers (aged 18-29 years).MeasurementsParticipants were asked their perceptions of the level of harmful chemicals in e-cigarettes versus cigarettes (fewer/about the same/more/do not know), perceived harmfulness of using e-cigarette versus cigarettes (less/about the same/more/do not know) and their current e-cigarette use and use interest.FindingsApproximately 20% of all participants (18.1% of adult smokers, and 21.0% of young adult non-smokers) believed e-cigarettes contain fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes, while 35.6% of adult smokers and 24.9% of young adult non-smokers responded 'do not know'. Participants more frequently reported 'do not know' to the chemicals item than the harm item. Approximately half (51.0-55.7%) of those who believed e-cigarettes contain fewer harmful chemicals also believed e-cigarettes are less harmful than cigarettes. Both beliefs were associated with higher odds of interest in using e-cigarettes [less harmful belief, odds ratio (OR) = 5.53, 95% confidence interval (CI = 2.93-10.43); fewer chemicals belief, OR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.40-4.29] and past 30-day e-cigarette use (less harmful belief, OR = 2.53, 95% CI = 1.17-5.44; fewer chemicals belief, OR = 5.09, 95% CI = 2.31-11.19) for adults who smoke, but not young adult non-smokers.ConclusionsIn the United States, most adults who smoke cigarettes and young adult non-smokers do not appear to think that e-cigarettes have fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes, and many are uncertain about how these levels compare.
| S-EPMC10640892 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSociodemographic differences in e-cigarette use have been documented; however, disparities in use of specific e-cigarette types with various ingredients have yet to be thoroughly investigated. This study examines ever- and past-30-day-use of nicotine, cannabis, and non-nicotine e-cigarette device types by sex, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, and financial comfort.MethodsData were drawn from a 2021 national cross-sectional survey of adolescents, young adults, and adults (N = 6131, ages 13-40 years old). Participants reported ever and past-30-day-use of (1) disposable nicotine e-cigarettes, (2) pod/cartridge-based nicotine e-cigarettes, (3) "other" nicotine e-cigarettes, (4) non-nicotine e-cigarettes, (5) e-cigarettes with THC, and (6) e-cigarettes with CBD. We constructed summary tables for each e-cigarette device type in which percentages of ever and past-30-day-use were calculated by birth year category and sociodemographic variables: (a) sex, (b) sexual orientation, (c) race/ethnicity, and (d) financial comfort.ResultsFemales born between 1996 and 2008 reported higher rates of past-30-day disposable e-cigarette use relative to males (females 26.4%; males 22.4%). Compared to their heterosexual counterparts, LGBTQ+ participants reported higher overall rates of past-30-day-use for disposable (LGBTQ+ 27.9%; Heterosexual 23.8%), THC (LGBTQ+ 30.8%; Heterosexual 24.1%), and CBD e-cigarettes (LGBTQ+ 20.0%; Heterosexual 16.9%). Hispanic/Latino participants generally reported higher rates of past-30-day-use across device types relative to those identifying as Black or White non-Hispanic, particularly disposable nicotine e-cigarettes.ConclusionsFindings highlight sociodemographic disparities in e-cigarette use, though differences varied based on e-cigarette device type and participant birth year category. Tailored preventive efforts may be necessary to mitigate e-cigarette use among populations at highest risk.
| S-EPMC10949227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:E-cigarettes are increasingly being viewed, incorrectly, as more harmful than cigarettes. This may discourage smokers from switching to e-cigarettes. One potential explanation for these increasingly harmful attitudes is conflicting information presented in the media and online, and from public health bodies. In this prospectively registered online study, we aimed to examine the impact of conflicting public health information on smokers' and vapers' e-cigarette harm perceptions. Daily UK smokers who do not vape (n = 334) and daily UK vapers (n = 368) were randomized to receive either: (1) a consistent harm reduction statement from two different public health bodies (Harm Reduction), (2) a consistent negative statement about e-cigarette harms from two different public health bodies (Negative), (3) a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Conflict), and (4) a statement of the risks of smoking followed by a harm reduction statement from one public health body and a negative statement from another (Smoking Risk + Conflict). Participants then answered questions regarding their perceptions of e-cigarette harm. The Negative condition had the highest e-cigarette harm perceptions, significantly higher than the Smoking Risk + Conflict condition (MD = 5.4, SE = 1.8, p < .016, d = 0.3 [CI 0.73 to 10.04]), which did not differ from the Conflict condition (MD = 1.5, SE = 1.8, p = .836, d = 0.1 [CI -3.14 to 6.17]). The Conflict condition differed from the Harm Reduction condition, where harm perceptions were lowest (MD = 5.4, SE = 1.8, p = .016, d = 0.3 [CI 0.74 to 10.07]). These findings are the first to demonstrate that, compared to harm reduction information, conflicting information increases e-cigarette harm perceptions amongst vapers, and smokers who do not vape. This research provides the first empirical evidence that conflicting information increases smokers' and vapers' e-cigarette harm perceptions, compared to harm reduction information. This may have a meaningful impact on public health as e-cigarette harm perceptions can influence subsequent smoking and vaping behavior. Conflicting information may dissuade smokers, who have the most to gain from accurate e-cigarette harm perceptions, from switching to e-cigarettes. These findings indicate that public health communications that are consensus-based can lower harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, and have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality attributable to tobacco smoking.
| S-EPMC9653072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Debate is ongoing about whether the scientific evidence of the health risks of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) compared with combustible cigarettes (hereinafter referred to as cigarettes) has been accurately communicated to the public. Large representative surveys are needed to examine how the public perceives the health risk of e-cigarettes and how their perceptions change over time. Objective:To examine how US adults perceived the harm of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes and how their perception has changed from 2012 to 2017. Design, Setting, and Participants:Survey study using data from 2 multiyear cross-sectional nationally representative surveys-the Tobacco Products and Risk Perceptions Surveys (TPRPS) and the Health Information National Trends Surveys (HINTS)-to assess perceived harm of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes among US adults in 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Respondents were selected via address-based sampling or random-digit dialing and consisted of adults 18 years or older. Analyses were conducted from February through April 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Self-reported perceived harm of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes. Results:The analytical samples of TPRPS consisted of 2800 adults in 2012 (cumulative response rate, 7.3%), 5668 in 2014 (cumulative response rate, 6.6%), 5372 in 2015 (cumulative response rate, 6.8%), 5245 in 2016 (cumulative response rate, 6.4%), and 5357 in 2017 (cumulative response rate, 5.8%). The analytical samples of HINTS consisted of 2609 adults in 2012 (response rate, 39.9%), 3301 in 2014 (response rate, 34.4%), 2224 in 2015 (response rate, 33.0%), and 2683 in 2017 (response rate, 32.4%). The proportion of adults who perceived e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes decreased from 39.4% (95% CI, 36.9%-41.9%) in 2012 to 33.9% (95% CI, 32.7%-35.2%) in 2017 in TPRPS and decreased from 50.7% (95% CI, 48.8%-52.7%) in 2012 to 34.5% (95% CI, 32.7%-36.3%) in 2017 in HINTS. During the same period, the proportion of adults who perceived e-cigarettes to be as harmful as cigarettes increased from 11.5% (95% CI, 10.0%-13.2%) in 2012 to 36.4% (95% CI, 35.1%-37.7%) in 2017 (TPRPS) and from 46.4% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.3%) in 2012 to 55.6% (95% CI, 53.7%-57.5%) in 2017 (HINTS). Those who perceived e-cigarettes to be more harmful than cigarettes increased from 1.3% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.2%) in 2012 to 4.3% (95% CI, 3.8%-4.9%) in 2017 (TPRPS) and from 2.8% (95% CI, 2.2%-3.5%) in 2012 to 9.9% (95% CI, 8.8%-11.1%) in 2017 (HINTS). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, the proportion of US adults who perceived e-cigarettes to be as harmful as or more harmful than cigarettes increased substantially from 2012 to 2017. The findings of this study underscore the urgent need to accurately communicate the risks of e-cigarettes to the public, which should clearly differentiate the absolute from the relative harms of e-cigarettes.
| S-EPMC6450305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRelationships between cigarette filter ventilation levels, biomarkers of exposure (BOE) and potential harm (BOPH), and harm perceptions were examined.MethodsFilter ventilation levels in cigarette brands were merged with Wave 1 (2013-2014) Population Assessment of Tobacco Use and Health study. Data were restricted to smokers who reported a usual brand and not regular users of other tobacco products. BOEs included nicotine, tobacco-specific nitrosamines, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. BOPHs measured inflammation and oxidative stress. Perceived harm was assessed as self-reported risk of one's usual brand compared with other brands.ResultsFilter ventilation ranged from 0.2% to 61.1% (n = 1,503). Adjusted relationships between filter ventilation and BOE or BOPH were nonsignificant except for VOC N-acetyl-S-(phenyl)-L-cysteine (PHMA) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). In pairwise comparisons, PHMA was higher in quartile (Q) 4 (4.23 vs. 3.36 pmol/mg; P = 0.0103) and Q3 (4.48 vs. 3.36 pmol/mg; P = 0.0038) versus Q1 of filter ventilation and hsCRP comparisons were nonsignificant. Adjusted odds of perceiving one's own brand as less harmful was 26.87 (95% confidence interval: 4.31-167.66), 12.55 (3.01-52.32), and 19.18 (3.87-95.02) times higher in the Q2, Q3, and Q4 of filter ventilation compared with Q1 (P = 0.0037).ConclusionsFilter ventilation was not associated with BOE or BOPH, yet smokers of higher ventilated cigarettes perceived their brand as less harmful than other brands compared with smokers of lower ventilated cigarettes.ImpactResearch to understand the impact of this misperception is needed, and remedial strategies, potentially including a ban on filter ventilation, are recommended.
| S-EPMC7855960 | biostudies-literature