Summary
Introduction:
This article examines how individual e-cigarette use perceptions differ between adolescents based on e-cigarette use status and susceptibility to future use of e-cigarettes. The study uses data from surveys administered across 8 Connecticut high schools in Spring 2015.
Key Points:
* The study categorized students into three groups: non-susceptible never-users, susceptible never-users, and ever-users.
* The study identified 12 e-cigarette use perceptions describing perceived benefits and risks of e-cigarette use.
* A multinomial logistic regression model was used to examine use perceptions as predictors of e-cigarette susceptibility and use status.
* Eight use perceptions were related to susceptibility or use of e-cigarettes.
* Benefit-related use perceptions, such as feeling relaxed, controlling weight, and looking cool, were associated with higher odds of being susceptible to e-cigarette use.
* Risk-related use perceptions, such as having a heart attack, having bad breath, and getting lung cancer, were associated with lower odds of being susceptible to or ever-using e-cigarettes.
* Demographic characteristics, such as age, sex, race/ethnicity, and ever use of other tobacco products, were also examined.
Main Message:
The study findings suggest that e-cigarette use perceptions among youth differ by e-cigarette use and susceptibility status. Understanding these differences can help identify youth who are vulnerable to e-cigarette use and inform prevention efforts, such as developing counter-messaging for benefit perceptions associated with susceptibility and ever-use. Regulatory measures can also be informed by these findings, such as restricting marketing and advertising of e-cigarettes that appeal to youth and emphasize perceived benefits and minimizing perceived risks.
Citation
Burnley A, Bold KW, Kong G, Wu R, Krishnan-Sarin S. E-cigarette use perceptions that differentiate e-cigarette susceptibility and use among high school students. The American journal of drug and alcohol abuse. 2021;47(2):238-246. doi:10.1080/00952990.2020.1826501
