week-2 Resources reviews

108

E lectronic cigarettes, or “e-cigarettes,” are de- vices that consist of a battery-operated ele- ment which heats a mixture of propylene gly-

col, vegetable glycerin, liquid nicotine and flavor- ings for the user to inhale. Whereas their overall safety, as well as their role in smoking cessation, is the topic of ongoing debate,1 there is no doubt that the prevalence of e-cigarette use has increased rap- idly among all age groups.2,3 Among adolescents, nationally-representative estimates indicate that past 30-day use for e-cigarettes is higher than con- ventional cigarettes, and a considerable proportion of e-cigarette users are dual users of cigarettes.4 That is, a nontrivial number of adolescents—2.2% of 8th graders, 4.3% of 10th graders and 7.3% of 12th graders— reported using both e-cigarettes and

cigarettes in the past 30 days.4 Several e-cigarette product features are raising concerns about the potential to appeal to youth. For example, charac- teristics such as candy flavorings and easy access have been implicated as reasons for youth experi- mentation.5 E-cigarettes also are marketed heavily on the Internet. A content analysis of e-cigarette retail websites found frequent appeals to youth such as use by celebrities, enhanced social activ- ity, and romance.6

Adolescent Dual Product Use Increasingly, youth who use tobacco products

are using more than one type of product.7,8 Be- tween 2002 and 2011, rates of poly-tobacco use increased significantly among users under age 26.9 According to estimates from the National Youth To- bacco Survey, the majority of current tobacco us- ers in middle and high school report use of more than one tobacco product.10,11 Thus, use of mul- tiple tobacco products by youth is more common than exclusive use of one product alone. As such, it is important to understand the correlates asso- ciated with and characteristics of adolescent us- ers of multiple tobacco products. To date, evidence

Maria Cooper, Post-doctoral Fellow, Kathleen R. Case, Pre- doctoral Fellow, MeLisa R. Creamer, Faculty Associate, and Cheryl L. Perry, Professor and Regional Dean, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Austin Regional Campus, Austin, TX. Alexandra Lou- kas, Professor, University of Texas at Austin, Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, Austin, TX. Contact Dr Loukas; [email protected]

E-cigarette Dual Users, Exclusive Users and Perceptions of Tobacco Products

Maria Cooper, PhD; Kathleen R. Case, MPH; Alexandra Loukas, PhD; MeLisa R. Creamer, PhD; Cheryl L. Perry, PhD

Objectives: We examined differences in the characteristics of youth non-users, cigarette-only, e-cigarette-only, and dual e-cigarette and cigarette users. Methods: Using weighted, representative data, lo- gistic regression analyses were conducted to examine differences in demographic characteristics and tobacco use behav- iors across tobacco usage groups. Multi- ple linear regression analyses were con- ducted to examine differences in harm perceptions of various tobacco products and perceived peer use of e-cigarettes by tobacco usage group. Results: Compared to non-users, dual users were more likely to be white, male, and high school stu- dents. Dual users had significantly higher prevalence of current use of all products (except hookah) than e-cigarette-only us-

ers, and higher prevalence of current use of snus and hookah than the cigarette- only group. Dual users had significantly lower harm perceptions for all tobacco products except for e-cigarettes and hoo- kah as compared to e-cigarette-only us- ers. Dual users reported higher peer use of cigarettes as compared to both exclu- sive user groups. Conclusion: Findings highlight dual users’ higher prevalence of use of most other tobacco products, their lower harm perceptions of most tobacco products compared to e-cigarette-only us- ers, and their higher perceived peer use of cigarettes compared to exclusive users.

Key words: tobacco use; adolescents; electronic cigarettes

Am J Health Behav. 2016;40(1):108-116 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.40.1.12

Cooper et al

Am J Health Behav.™ 2016;40(1):108-116 109 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.40.1.12

suggests that, in general, adolescents who use 2 or more tobacco products are demographically dis- tinct from those who use one product. Dual prod- uct users (in particular, those who use cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) are more likely to be male and white than female and non-white.7,12 In ad- dition, current cigarette/smokeless tobacco dual product users are more likely to be in high school than middle school,13 and current cigar/cigarette dual users are more likely to have a lower grade point average as compared to non-users.14 Howev- er, the demographic characteristics of adolescent dual product e-cigarette and cigarette users are largely unknown.

The literature describes the deleterious effects of multiple tobacco product use among adolescents, including increased nicotine dependence, as well as increased risk for substance use disorders.7,15,16 However, to date, there is limited research exam- ining the characteristics of adolescents who use e-cigarettes and at least one other tobacco prod- uct. Some studies have explored youth e-cigarette use with a focus on the prevalence of concomi- tant cigarette use, motivations for e-cigarette use, abstinence from cigarettes and intentions to use other tobacco products,17-20 but with a limited fo- cus on social-cognitive risk factors. An exception is a study by Wills et al21 that examined current e- cigarette and cigarette use among high school stu- dents in Hawaii. The researchers assessed differ- ences in risk factors and protective factors among students reporting no tobacco use, exclusive cur- rent e-cigarette or cigarette use, and dual use. Findings indicated that risk status varied across usage groups, with dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes reporting the most risk factors and the fewest protective factors, and e-cigarette-only us- ers representing an intermediate category between non-users and dual users.

Perceptions of Harm and Peer Use of E-cigarettes

According to the theory of planned behavior, in- dividuals’ perceptions, including their attitude to- ward a behavior, normative beliefs, and perceived control, influence their decision to take part in a particular behavior.22 Consistent with this theory, adolescents who use tobacco products are expect- ed to be less likely to perceive risks from their use than non-users.23 Therefore, users of multiple to- bacco products are likely to hold the lowest harm perceptions as compared to users of only one to- bacco product and non-users of tobacco; this re- lationship has been demonstrated already.24 More- over, adolescent ever smokers who believe it is safe to smoke are more likely than their peers to use tobacco products other than cigarettes (smokeless tobacco, cigars, and bidis).25 However, few studies have examined harm perceptions as they relate to adolescents’ use of e-cigarettes, and even fewer have focused on adolescents who use e-cigarettes with at least one other tobacco product. This is

particularly important given the controversies around the harmful effects of e-cigarette use,1 and the need for more substantive research to docu- ment the potentially harmful effects of e-cigarette use in adolescence.26

To our knowledge, only 3 studies assess harm perceptions of e-cigarettes in an adolescent popula- tion. Amrock et al27 found that several characteris- tics were associated with adolescents’ perceptions of e-cigarettes as relatively safer than cigarettes: being white, using other tobacco products, and having family members who used tobacco. In ad- dition, adolescents who had ever used e-cigarettes perceived them as less harmful than cigarettes, as compared to those who had never used e-ciga- rettes. Ambrose et al28 found that whereas one in 3 adolescents believed e-cigarettes were less harm- ful than cigarettes, the majority of current smokers (54%) held this belief as compared to fewer of the ever smokers (41%) and never smokers (25%). Ad- ditionally, ever use of an e-cigarette had a strong relationship with perceiving e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes. In particular, dual users of e-cigarettes with cigarettes were more than twice as likely to perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful compared to exclusive cigarette smokers, and ado- lescents who used e-cigarettes alone had a 6-fold increase in their likelihood of perceiving e-ciga- rettes as less harmful than cigarettes, compared to adolescents who had never used either product. Wills et al21 found that current e-cigarette-only us- ers were more likely to report that e-cigarettes were a healthy alternative to cigarettes as compared to non-users, but no differences were found between exclusive e-cigarette and cigarette user groups or between exclusive e-cigarette and dual use groups.

As stated in the theory of planned behavior, nor- mative beliefs are influenced by perceptions about whether others in an individual’s social network perform the behavior of interest.22 Prior research demonstrates that peers have a strong influence on both adolescents’ initiation and escalation in cigarette use.29 Interestingly, perceived prevalence of smoking rather than actual prevalence of peer smoking is associated with an increased risk of smoking among youth.30 There are few published articles, however, that describe peer use in relation to youth use of tobacco products other than ciga- rettes. The limited evidence suggests that having peers who used other tobacco products or expo- sure to peer smoking are both significant predic- tors of adolescent use of alternative tobacco prod- ucts such as cigars, smokeless tobacco, bidis and kreteks.25,12 Wills et al21 reported that among high school students, perceptions of peer smoking dif- fered according to tobacco usage group. Perceived peer smoking was higher among exclusive e-cig- arette users as compared to non-users as well as higher among dual users as compared to exclusive e-cigarette users. No differences were found for peer smoking between e-cigarette-only and ciga- rette-only groups.

E-cigarette Dual Users, Exclusive Users and Perceptions of Tobacco Products

110

According to the Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, Texas ranks 32nd out of 50 US states in prevalence of conventional cigarette smoking among high school students.31 Additionally, our 2015 paper showed that e-cigarette use was higher in Texas than both national estimates and those document- ed in other states.32 Furthermore, Texas receives more tobacco industry marketing dollars than any other state except California33 and ranks 40th among states in spending for tobacco prevention.34 Therefore, youth in Texas, who represent 9.6% of all US youth,35 are a vulnerable population, mak- ing the state an important backdrop to understand characteristics and perceptions associated with to- bacco use in adolescents.

The purpose of the current study was to exam- ine Texas adolescents’ harm perceptions of various tobacco products and perceived peer use of e-cig- arettes based on usage group. There were 3 aims. First, we examined pairwise differences among 4 usage groups—non-cigarette and non-e-cigarette users, cigarette-only users, e-cigarette-only users and dual users—in their demographic character- istics and tobacco use behaviors. Second, we ex- amined pairwise differences among the 4 usage groups in perceptions about the harms of various tobacco products and alcohol use, as well as per- ceived peer use of tobacco products. Third, we ex- amined differences in cigarette harm perceptions and e-cigarette harm perceptions by usage group. We hypothesized that dual users would more likely be older, white, and male as compared to other us- age groups. We also hypothesized that dual users would have higher rates of perceived peer use as well as lower reported rates of perceived harm for all tobacco products. This study furthers under- standing of perceptions of tobacco products and peer use among both exclusive and dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes.

METHODS Participants

Participants were 13,602 6th through 12th grade students attending 69 public schools in 27 coun- ties in Texas; 49.9% were female; 43.9% were non- Hispanic Whites, 5.8% were African Americans, 41.1% were Hispanics, and 9.2% reported another ethnicity.

Procedure Data were drawn from the 2014 Texas Youth To-

bacco Survey, which sampled students from pub- lic school districts across the state. Recruitment of schools occurred in one of 2 ways: (1) school dis- tricts in 12 “coalition” counties involved in a state- funded tobacco prevention and control project were recruited to participate in the study; of the 65 school districts in these counties, 23 participated (N = 52 schools); and (2) proportional probability sampling (recruitment probability is proportional to size of the school) was used to recruit an ad- ditional 17 schools from 15 additional counties.

The school response rate was 25%, whereas stu- dent participation rate was 87%. In spring 2014, 13,602 students voluntarily completed the 38-item anonymous survey, either via paper-and-pencil (N = 59 schools) or online (N = 10 schools), in their classrooms during class time.

Measures

Tobacco use categories. To generate cat- egories of current tobacco use, responses from 2 items adapted from the Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention’s (CDC) 2013 National Youth Tobacco Survey were analyzed: (1) “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you use elec- tronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, such as Ruyan or NJOY?” and (2) During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes?” From these 2 items, 4 usage groups were generated: non-users of e-cigarettes or cigarettes; e-cigarette-only users; cigarette-only users; and e-cigarette and cigarette dual users. Participants who reported not using either product during the past 30 days were clas- sified as non-users of e-cigarettes or cigarettes, participants who reported using e-cigarettes at least one day during the past 30 days and re- ported using cigarettes zero days during the past 30 days were classified as e-cigarette-only users, participants who reported using e-cigarettes zero days during the past 30 days and reported using cigarettes on at least one day during the past 30 days were classified as cigarette-only users, and participants who reported using both products on at least one day during the past 30 days were clas- sified as e-cigarette and cigarette dual users.

Other current and lifetime tobacco use. Cur- rent and lifetime use of other tobacco products in- cluding chew, snus, hookah and flavored tobacco products also was analyzed. For each of the tobac- co products, students reporting at least one day of other tobacco product use in the past 30 days were classified as current users, and those who reported ever using a tobacco product were clas- sified as lifetime users. Lifetime use of e-cigarettes and of cigarettes also was included; thus, students reporting ever using those products were classified as lifetime users.

Harm perceptions of tobacco products and alcohol. To measure harm perceptions for various products, respondents are asked: “How dangerous do you think it is for a person your age to use: (1) Cigarettes; (2) Chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip, such as Redman, Levi Garrett, Beechnut, Skoal, Skoal Bandits, or Copenhagen; (3) Snus, such as Skoal, General, Camel or Marlboro Snus; (4) Tobacco in a hookah or a water pipe; (5) Electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, such as Ruyan or NJOY; (6) Tobacco products that are flavored; (7) Alcohol.” Response options are given on a 4-point scale, and include: “very dangerous, somewhat dangerous, not very dangerous, and not dangerous at all.” Responses were reverse coded from “not dangerous at all” (1) to “very dangerous” (4).

Cooper et al

Am J Health Behav.™ 2016;40(1):108-116 111 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.40.1.12

Perceived peer use of tobacco products. To measure perceived peer use for various products, respondents are asked: “About how many of your closest friends: 1) Smoke cigarettes? (2) Use chew- ing tobacco, snuff or dip such as Redman, Levi Garrett, Beechnut, Skoal, Skoal Bandits, or Co- penhagen? (3) Electronic cigarettes or e-cigarettes, such as Ruyan or NJOY?“ Response options are given on a 6-point scale, and include: “none, a few, some, most, all, not sure.” Respondents who chose “not sure” were removed from the analysis on peer

use. Therefore, responses ranged from “none” (0) to “all” (4).

Data Analysis Logistic regression analyses were used to ex-

amine differences in demographic characteristics, grades in school, and tobacco use behaviors across usage groups. Demographic characteristics, grades in school, and tobacco use behaviors served as the dependent variables, while usage group served as the independent variable. All dependent vari-

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics in Usage Groups (Logistic Regression

Analyses) — 2014 Texas Youth Tobacco Survey

Non-e-cigarette/ Cigarette Users

(N = 11,431) E-cigarette-only Users

(N = 638) Cigarette-only Users

(N = 474) Dual Users (N = 761)

Overall (%) 82.2 6.38 3.87 7.55 Sex % Female 52.06 50.76 43.51 28.99a

% Male 47.94 49.24 56.49 71.01a

School Level % Middle School 49.54 32.58 31.05a 19.36a,c

% High School 50.46 67.42 68.95a 80.64a,c

Race/Ethnicity % White 42.22 47.11 44.71 58.12a,c

% Black 6.39 2.29 9.49 1.96 % Hispanic 43.12 35.36 33.10 27.08a,b

% Other 8.27 15.24 12.70 12.84 Mean Gradesd 3.14 3.13 2.52a,b 2.83a

Current Tobacco Use % Chew 1.88 22.55a 41.12a 52.47a,b

% Snus 0.45 10.15a 15.20a 47.33a,b,c

% Hookah 1.86 45.40a 17.04 54.26a,c

% Flavored 1.67 38.23a 37.93a 64.82a,b

Lifetime Use % E-cigarette 9.15 -- 55.03a -- % Cigarette 12.45 54.78a -- -- % Chew 7.12 30.81a 50.65a 60.61a,b

% Snus 2.56 21.41a 37.93a 53.88a,b

% Hookah 5.49 60.02a 32.32a 59.87a

% Flavored 6.86 56.64a 60.33a 76.74a

Note. a Significantly different from Non-e-cigarette/Cigarette users, p < .05 b Significantly different from E-cigarette-only users, p < .05 c Significantly different from Cigarette-only users, p < .05 d Measured on 0 to 4 scale, from “Mostly Fs” to “Mostly As”; ANOVA conducted to determine differences in mean grades

E-cigarette Dual Users, Exclusive Users and Perceptions of Tobacco Products

112

ables were dichotomized using dummy variables, and separate regression models were conducted for each of the dependent variables. Results were adjusted to account for multiple comparisons us- ing the Bonferroni correction. Additionally, one- way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine differences in mean grades in school across the 4 usage groups. Multiple linear regres- sion analyses were conducted to examine differ- ences in harm perceptions and perceptions of peer use by usage groups, adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity. Pairwise comparisons using the Bonferroni correction were obtained post-estima- tion to determine differences in harm perceptions and perceived peer use between: (1) non-users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes versus dual users; (2) e-cigarette-only users versus dual users; and (3) cigarette-only users versus dual users. Finally, to examine differences in cigarette harm perceptions and e-cigarette harm perceptions by usage group, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to generate mean harm perceptions for each of the usage groups. Multiple linear regression analyses also were performed to determine the difference in mean by each current usage group and to test if the difference was significantly different from zero. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and race/eth- nicity.

All analyses were conducted using state sam- pling weights, and school level clustering was ac- counted for by including schools as the cluster variable in regression models, thereby making the study representative of schools in Texas. Whereas the overall sample size was 13,602, the sample sizes varied for each model due to missing data, which ranged from 0.8% to 2.3% for the included variables.

RESULTS Differences across 4 Usage Groups in Demographic Characteristics and Tobacco Use Behaviors

The majority of participants (82.2%) were non- users of either product. Nearly 8% were dual us- ers, over 6% were e-cigarette-only users and close to 4% were cigarette-only users. As Table 1 shows, dual users were significantly more likely to be male than non-users. The proportion of dual users in high school was significantly higher than the proportions of cigarette-only and non-user groups in high school (versus middle school). Dual users were more likely to be white than both the ciga- rette-only and non-user groups. Non-users were more likely to be Hispanic than dual users (but not more likely than the e-cigarette-only or cig- arette-only groups). In addition, differences were

Table 2 Adjusted Means (SE) for Variables across Usage Groups with Regression

Coefficients from Multiple Linear Regression—2014 Texas Youth Tobacco Survey Non-e-cigarette/ Cigarette Users

(N = 11,431)

E-cigarette- only Users (N = 638)

Cigarette- only Users (N = 474)

Dual Users

(N = 761)

Non-users vs Dual Users

E-cigarette- only vs

Dual Users

Cigarette- only vs.

Dual Users

Harm Perceptionsa

Cigarettes 3.59 (.02) 3.51 (.10) 2.84 (.05) 2.76 (.06) 0.83*** 0.74*** 0.07 E-cigarettes 3.13 (.04) 2.11 (.06) 2.46 (.14) 1.91 (.07) 1.22*** 0.20 0.55*** Chew 3.57 (.02) 3.21 (.06) 2.91 (.13) 2.82 (.06) 0.75*** 0.39*** .10 Snus 3.61 (.02) 3.36 (.10) 2.90 (.13) 2.83 (.06) 0.78*** 0.53*** .07 Hookah 3.43 (.02) 2.47 (.17) 2.66 (.13) 2.50 (.09) 0.93*** -0.03 0.16 General Tobacco 3.43 (.02) 2.77 (.06) 2.71 (.13) 2.54 (.05) 0.89*** 0.23** 0.17 Alcohol 3.42 (.03) 3.06 (.05) 2.91 (.06) 2.68 (.06) 0.74*** 0.38** 0.23 Peer useb

Cigarettes 0.55 (.02) 1.01 (.13) 1.67 (.12) 2.11 (.05) -1.56*** -1.10*** -0.44* E-cigarettes 0.73 (.04) 1.76 (.08) 1.57 (.25) 2.01 (.13) -1.28*** 0.25 -0.44 Chew 0.58 (.02) 1.11 (.15) 1.60 (.26) 1.71 (.09) -1.13*** -0.60 -0.11

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Note. a Measured on a 1 to 4 scale from “not dangerous at all” to “very dangerous” b Measured on a 0 to 4 scale from “none” to “all” Analyses adjusted for age, sex and race/ethnicity, using state sampling weights and accounting for school-level clustering; results adjusted for multiple comparisons using Bonferroni adjustment

Cooper et al

Am J Health Behav.™ 2016;40(1):108-116 113 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.40.1.12

found among usage groups for self-reported aca- demic performance in the last school year. Both non-users and e-cigarette-only users had higher mean grades than the cigarette-only group, and the non-user group had higher mean grades than the dual user group.

Significant differences in prevalence of other tobacco product use were found across all cate- gories of products. Non-users differed from all 3 usage groups, and had the lowest prevalence of current and lifetime use other tobacco products with one exception being no significant difference between non-users and cigarette-only users in current hookah use. Current and lifetime use of other products was not significantly different be- tween e-cigarette-only and cigarette-only groups. Dual users did not differ from cigarette-only users on lifetime use of any tobacco product. However, lifetime prevalence estimates for chew (60.6%) and snus (53.9%) were higher among dual users than e-cigarette-only users and non-users. Moreover, dual users had higher prevalence of current use of all products (except hookah) than e-cigarette-only users, as well as significantly higher prevalence of current use of snus (47.3%) and hookah (54.3%) than the cigarette-only group.

Harm Perceptions and Peer Use across Usage Groups

As Table 2 shows, significant differences were found in the perceptions of harm of tobacco prod- ucts and alcohol use among usage groups. Non- users were significantly more likely to rate all tobacco products and alcohol use as more harm- ful than did the dual use group. The e-cigarette- only group perceived cigarettes as more harmful, when compared to the dual user group, and the cigarette-only group rated e-cigarettes significantly more harmful than the dual use group. There were

similar patterns of differences in perceptions of harm for both chew and snus. The e-cigarette-only group perceived both products as more harmful than the dual use group, whereas no differences were seen between the cigarette-only group and the dual use group. No significant differences were found between e-cigarette-only users or cigarette- only users and dual users in their perceptions of harm of hookah. Similar patterns also were seen in perceptions of harm for general tobacco and al- cohol. Whereas no differences were found between the cigarette-only group and the dual user group, e-cigarette-only users were more likely to rate both general tobacco and alcohol use as more harmful than the dual user group.

Regarding peer use, there were significant dif- ferences between groups on perceived peer use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes and chew (Table 2). Dual users perceived higher peer use of all products as compared to non-users. Dual users also perceived higher peer use of cigarettes as compared to both the e-cigarette-only and cigarette-only groups. No differences were seen in perceived peer use of ei- ther e-cigarettes or chew between dual users and exclusive user group comparisons.

Comparisons in Harm Perceptions of Cigarettes and E-cigarettes within Usage Groups

Comparisons of cigarette and e-cigarette harm perceptions by tobacco usage group are displayed in Table 3.The mean harm perceptions score was significantly higher for cigarettes than for e-ciga- rettes among all usage groups. The difference in mean harm perceptions between cigarettes and e- cigarettes was 0.46 (p < .001) for non-users, 1.44 (p < .001) for e-cigarette-only users, 0.55 (p = .003) for cigarette-only users, and 0.89 (p < .001) for dual users.

Table 3 Comparison of Cigarette and E-cigarette Harm Perceptions by Usage Group (Multiple Linear Regression Analyses) —2014 Texas Youth Tobacco Survey

Cigarette Harm Perceptionsa Mean (SE)

E-cigarette Harm Perceptionsa Mean (SE)

Differenceb Mean (SE)

Use Behavior Non- e-cigarette/Cigarette Users N = 11,020) 3.59 (.02) 3.13 (.04) 0.46 (.02) p < .001 E-cigarette-only Users (N = 611) 3.53 (.11) 2.09 (.08) 1.44 (.07), p < .001 Cigarette-only Users (N = 448) 3.03 (.06) 2.48 (.14) 0.55 (.18), p = .003 Dual Users (N = 729) 2.80 (.07) 1.91 (.07) 0.89 (.11) p < .001

Note. a measured on a 1 to 4 scale from “not dangerous at all” to “very dangerous” b Cigarette- e-cigarette Harm Perceptions Analyses adjusted for age, sex and race/ethnicity, using state sampling weights and accounting for school-level clustering Means presented in Table 3 differ slightly from those is Table 2 as a result of differences in sample size due to missing data

E-cigarette Dual Users, Exclusive Users and Perceptions of Tobacco Products

114

DISCUSSION The current study adds to the limited body of

literature describing patterns of e-cigarette use among middle and high school students, percep- tions of harm, and peer use for these relatively new products whose prevalence of use is on the rise, as well as other types of tobacco products. Find- ings from the 2014 Texas Youth Tobacco Survey confirm results from other studies on the emerging patterns of e-cigarette use among youth, showing that a large number of youth are using e-cigarettes only, and many are using e-cigarettes in conjunc- tion with conventional cigarettes.2,4

Findings highlight demographic differences based on usage group. Interestingly, non-users and e-cigarette-only users did not differ on any of the sociodemographic characteristics we exam- ined. Dual users had the most differences across groups. They were more likely to be male, older, white, and have lower mean grades than non- users. They were also more likely to be older and white compared to the cigarette-only group. Dual users consistently had the highest prevalence of other tobacco product use, except for lifetime hoo- kah use, indicating that teens using both e-ciga- rettes and cigarettes are more likely to use other types of products, such as chew, snus and any fla- vored product.

Across the various tobacco products, harm per- ceptions differed among usage groups. For exam- ple, e-cigarette-only users viewed conventional cig- arettes as more harmful than the dual user group. This is a novel finding that has not been reported previously in the literature. The same pattern was not seen for e-cigarettes, however. Interestingly, there were no differences in how harmful the e- cigarette-only and the dual user groups rated e- cigarettes, however, the cigarette-only group rated e-cigarettes as more harmful than the dual user group. This study differs from one performed by Wills et al21 in that it measures absolute harm of e-cigarettes rather than relative harm compared to cigarettes; our results follow similar trends. For example, no differences in perceived harmfulness of e-cigarettes were found between e-cigarette- only and dual user groups. Findings also gener- ally confirm results from studies by Amrock et al27 and Ambrose et al28 that found that adolescents who use e-cigarettes perceive them as less harmful than those who do not. Consistent with Ambrose et al,28 dual users in our sample were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful compared to exclusive cigarette smokers, and in terms of dif- ferences between harm perceptions of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, our results also generally align with the finding that the highest risk of perceiving e- cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes was held by the exclusive e-cigarette users. Specifically, al- though the current study found that all 4 usage groups rated cigarettes as more harmful than e- cigarettes, the magnitude of the difference in harm perceptions was greatest for the e-cigarette-only

users followed by the dual users. These findings are consistent with the theory of planned behav- ior.22 According to the theory, dual users would perceive e-cigarettes to be less harmful than non- users and cigarette-only users, which may be why they would use them. Students who perceive e-cig- arettes as more harmful would be less likely than their counterparts to initiate use of these products.

Another striking finding was that harm percep- tions for hookah followed the same pattern as that of e-cigarettes in that, unlike all other tobacco product comparisons, perceptions of harm did not differ between e-cigarette-only and dual user groups. Few studies offer explanation as to why perceptions of harm may be similar for both prod- ucts. One study, however, highlighted a connec- tion between e-cigarette and hookah use, finding that adolescent e-cigarette-only users were more likely than cigarette smokers to use hookah.19 Given the limited evidence, we can only specu- late that similar ratings of harmfulness between e-cigarettes and hookah may be related to both products having a multitude of available flavorings or similarities between the sensation of inhaling e-cigarette aerosol and hookah smoke which has been cooled by the water pipe. For perceptions of chew and snus, group comparisons were gener- ally consistent with prior literature that has found that perceived risk of harm for smokeless tobacco varied by the tobacco product use groups, with a higher proportion of nonsmokers perceiving great risk of harm.36

Our results on perceived peer cigarette smoking are consistent with Wills et al’s21 finding that dif- ferences exist between exclusive e-cigarette users and dual users. Perceived peer use of e-cigarettes and chew differed only between non-users and dual users, a finding that has not been reported previously. Consistent with the theory of planned behavior, students who perceive higher levels of peer use are more likely to use tobacco products.22 These findings highlight the need to better under- stand the role of peers in adolescents’ e-cigarette use.

Limitations This study is subject to at least 3 limitations.

First, the cross-sectional design precludes us from making causal inferences about the findings. Sec- ond, the study participants are limited to Texas youth; therefore, findings may not be generalizable to populations outside of the sample. Finally, the survey item on flavored tobacco products does not make a distinction between types of product. Fur- thermore, it unknown whether adolescents con- sider e-cigarettes to be tobacco products.

Conclusion This study provides demographic characteristics

of adolescents who were exclusive e-cigarette us- ers, exclusive cigarette users, and dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, a novel contribution to

Cooper et al

Am J Health Behav.™ 2016;40(1):108-116 115 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.40.1.12

the field. Our findings confirm in many ways what we know about harm perceptions and tobacco use, that is, using a tobacco product is tied strongly to believing that it is less harmful than those who choose not to use the product. However, our find- ings also offer a new understanding of how tobac- co usage groups rate the harmfulness of various tobacco products. Dual users were more likely to have lower harm perceptions as compared to ex- clusive e-cigarette users for all tobacco products except for e-cigarettes and hookah, and they dif- fered from the cigarette-only group only in their harm perceptions of e-cigarettes, which they rated as less harmful. Dual users also were more likely to perceive higher peer use of cigarettes than the non-users and both exclusive user groups. Within the 4 tobacco usage groups, the e-cigarette-only users had the largest difference in their percep- tions of e-cigarettes as less harmful than ciga- rettes.

Implications for Practice and Policy The Family Smoking Prevention Tobacco Control

Act (2009) permitted the US Food and Drug Ad- ministration (FDA) to regulate cigarettes, smoke- less tobacco, and roll-your-own tobacco; however, the FDA also has the authority to regulate other products. In 2014, the FDA proposed to deem oth- er tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, within its purview. Findings in this study indicate that other tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, are popular among youth, and provide additional sci- entific evidence to support the need for these prod- ucts to be regulated by the FDA. Our study’s re- sults also provide important implications for pub- lic health practice. Interventions should include the full spectrum of tobacco products as students in our sample who used e-cigarettes were more likely to perceive e-cigarettes as less harmful and more likely to think their peers used e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Therefore, interventions should provide information regarding the harm- fulness of e-cigarettes and focus on changing the normative beliefs associated with these products.

Human Subjects Statement This study’s procedures have been approved by

Texas A&M University’s Institutional Review Board - Human Subjects in Research.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Statement None of the authors has any competing interests.

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the investigators and

staff members at Texas A&M University’s Public Policy Research Institute who conducted the Tex- as Youth Tobacco Survey in conjunction with the Texas Department of State Health Services. Study authors were supported by grant number [1 P50 CA180906-01] from the National Cancer Insti- tute at the National Institutes of Health and the

Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). The content is solely the responsi- bility of the authors and does not necessarily rep- resent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the Food and Drug Administration.

References 1. Cobb NK, Byron MJ, Abrams DB, Shields PG. Novel nico-

tine delivery systems and public health: the rise of the “e-cigarette.” Am J Public Health. 2010;100(12):2340- 2342.

2. Arrazola R, Singh T, Corey CG, et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students- United States, 2011- 2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(14):381- 385.

3. King BA, Patel R, Nguyen KH, Dube SR. Trends in aware- ness and use of electronic cigarettes among U.S. adults, 2010-2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(2):219-227.

4. Monitoring the Future 2014. National Results on Adoles- cent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan; 2015.

5. Kong G, Morean ME, Cavallo DA, et al. Reasons for elec- tronic cigarette experimentation and discontinuation among adolescents and young adults. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(7):847-854.

6. Grana RA, Ling PM. “Smoking revolution”: a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(4):395-403.

7. Everett SA, Malarcher AM, Sharp DJ, et al. Relationship between cigarette, smokeless tobacco, and cigar use, and other health risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. J School Health. 2000;70(6):234-240.

8. Soldz S, Huyser DJ, Dorsey E. Characteristics of users of cigars, bidis, and kreteks and the relationship to ciga- rette use. Prev Med. 2003;37(3):250-258.

9. Fix BV, O’Connor RJ, Vogl L, et al. Patterns and correlates of polytobacco use in the United States over a decade: NSDUH 2002-2011. Addict Behav. 2014;39(4):768-781.

10. Apelberg BJ, Backinger CL, Curry SJ. Enhancing youth tobacco surveillance to inform tobacco product regula- tion: findings from the 2012 National Youth Tobacco Survey. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(2 Suppl 1):S1-S3.

11. Nasim A, Blank MD, Cobb CO, et al. Patterns of alter- native tobacco use among adolescent cigarette smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;124(1-2):26-33.

12. Tercyak K. Psychosocial correlates of alternate tobac- co product use during early adolescence. Prev Med. 2002;35(2):193-198.

13. Tomar SL, Alpert HR, Connolly GN. Patterns of dual use of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco among US males: findings from national surveys. Tob Control. 2010;19(2):104-109.

14. Brooks A, Larkin EM, Kishore S, et al. Cigars, cigarettes, and adolescents. Am J Health Behav. 2008;32(6):640- 649.

15. Post A, Gilljam H, Rosendahl I, et al. Symptoms of nico- tine dependence in a cohort of Swedish youths: a com- parison between smokers, smokeless tobacco users and dual tobacco users. Addiction. 2010;105(4):740-746.

16. Cavazos-Rehg PA, Krauss MJ, Spitznagel EL, et al. Youth tobacco use type and associations with substance use disorders. Addiction. 2014;109(8):1371-1380.

17. Dutra LM, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarettes and conven- tional cigarette use among US adolescents: a cross-sec- tional study. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(7):610-617.

18. Bunnell RE, Agaku IT, Arrazola RA, et al. Intentions to smoke cigarettes among never-smoking U.S. middle and high school electronic cigarette users, National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2011-2013. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(2):228-235.

E-cigarette Dual Users, Exclusive Users and Perceptions of Tobacco Products

116

19. Camenga DR, Kong G, Cavallo DA, et al. Alternate to- bacco product and drug use among adolescents who use electronic cigarettes, cigarettes only, and never smokers. J Adolesc Health. 2014;55(4):588-591.

20. Camenga DR, Delmerico J, Kong G, et al. Trends in use of electronic nicotine delivery systems by adolescents. Addict Behav. 2014;39(1):338-340.

21. Wills TA, Knight R, Williams RJ, et al. Risk factors for exclusive e-cigarette use and dual e-cigarette use and tobacco use in adolescents. Pediatrics. 2015;135(1):e43 -e51.

22. Montaño D, Kasprzyk D. Theory of reasoned action, the- ory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice. 5th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2015:95-124.

23. Benthin A, Slovic P, Severson H. A pyschometric study of adolescent risk perception. J Adolesc. 1993;16:153-168.

24. Latimer LA, Batanova M, Loukas A. Prevalence and harm perceptions of various tobacco products among college students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;16(5):519-526.

25. Gilpin EA, Pierce JP. Concurrent use of tobacco products by California adolescents. Prev Med. 2003;36(5):575- 584.

26. Durmowicz EL. The impact of electronic cigarettes on the paediatric population. Tob Control. 2014;23 Suppl 2:ii41- 46.

27. Amrock SM, Zakhar J, Zhou S, et al. Perception of e- cigarettes’ harm and its correlation with use among U.S. adolescents. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(3):330-336.

28. Ambrose BK, Rostron BL, Johnson SE, et al. Perceptions

of the relative harm of cigarettes and e-cigarettes among U.S. youth. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(2 Suppl 1):S53-S60.

29. Li C, Pentz MA, Chou CP. Parental substance use as a modifier of adolescent substance use risk. Addiction. 2002;97:1537-1550.

30. Ellickson PL, Bird CE, Orlando M. Social context and adolescent health behavior: does school-level smoking prevalence affect students’ subsequent smoking behav- ior? J Health Soc Behav. 2003(44):525–535.

31. Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. Toll of tobacco in the United States. Available at: http://www.tobaccofreekids. org/what_we_do/state_local/. Accessed September 17, 2015.

32. Cooper M, Case KR, Loukas A. E-cigarette use among Texas youth: results from the 2014 Texas Youth Tobacco Survey. Addict Behav. 2015;50:173-177.

33. Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids. State-specific estimates of tobacco company marketing expenditures, 1998- 2012. Available at: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/ research/factsheets/pdf/0271.pdf. Accessed September 17, 2015.

34. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Spending on tobacco prevention: Texas. Available at: https://www.tobacco- freekids.org/microsites/statereport2015/texas.html. Accessed September 17, 2015.

35. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. KIDS COUNT data cen- ter. Available at: datacenter.kidscount.org. Accessed September 17, 2015.

36. Tomar SL, Hatsukami DK. Perceived risk of harm from cigarettes or smokeless tobacco among U.S. high school seniors. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007;9(11):1191-1196.

Copyright of American Journal of Health Behavior is the property of PNG Publications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.