Perceptions about e-cigarettes and prevalence of e-cigarette use among Floridian middle and high school students
Presentation
Overview
Overview
Description
Title: Perceptions About E-cigarettes and Prevalence of E-cigarette Use Among Floridian Middle and High School Students Significance: Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has become increasingly popular among youth in the past few years. Minimum legal sale age (MLSA) policies were established across the United States. On July 1st, 2014, a similar MLSA policy went into effect in Florida limiting e-cigarette access to adult residents (age 18 and older). Methods: Youth’s responses from the May 2014 and May 2015 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (FYTS) were used to analyze pre- and post-policy implementation trends. Difference-in-difference (DID) models were used to examine the impact of the MLSA policy on Florida students ever and current e-cigarette use. Youth’s perceptions about e-cigarettes were compared between the two years using the chi-square test. Results: Percentage of youth who tried e-cigarettes at least once in their lifetime (ever use) increased significantly (p<.0001) from 14.4% in 2014 to 25.6% in 2015. Current e-cigarette use among youth also significantly (p<.0001) increased from 7.3% in 2014 to 12.3% in 2015. After adjustment for other covariates, no significance was found for the interaction term (DID) between the policy year (2014 vs 2015) and the age group (adults vs minors). Within the sample of youth who were not current e-cigarette users, compared to 2014, significantly (p<.0001) more minors in 2015 considered e-cigarettes less harmful than cigarettes (27.5% vs 25.3%), less addictive than cocaine/heroine (22.3% vs 12.2%), harder to quit (36.6% vs 29.4%), disruptive of friendships (36.5% vs 28.7%), socially unappealing (73.4% vs 69.4%), disruptive of comfort in social situations (39.2% vs 34.2%), and useless in relieving stress (34.2% vs 27.3%). Compared to 2014, an equivalent significant (p<.0001) change occurred within the sample of minors who were current e-cigarette users in 2015. Conclusions: MLSA policy may not be enough as a stand-alone intervention. Intrapersonal (e.g., peer-to-peer, parent, health provider), organizational (e.g., school curriculum, anti-tobacco student groups), and community (e.g., health fairs) interventions may be needed to ensure tobacco prevention and reduction among youth.
