How minimum legal sale age for e-cigarettes can affect youth’s sources and locations for e-cigarette use?
Presentation
Overview
Overview
Description
Title: How Minimum Legal Sale Age for E-cigarettes Can Affect Youth’s Sources and Locations for E-cigarette Use? Introduction: Youth’s e-cigarette use escalated since 2011, forcing the FDA Commissioner and the U.S. Surgeon General to call it an epidemic. The minimum legal sale age (MLSA) policies are meant to restrict youth’s access to tobacco products. The aim of this study was to determine whether Florida’s MLSA policy (July 2014) led to changes in youth’s e-cigarette sources and locations of use. This study informs public health officials on what to consider in outcomes of MLSA policies. Methods: Responses (N = 74,478) from the May 2014 and May 2015 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey (FYTS) were analyzed as the pre- and post-policy-implementation results. Chi-square was used for comparison of the e-cigarette sources and locations of e-cigarette use between the two years. Results: Compared to the responses from the 2014 sample, current e-cigarette users surveyed in 2015 reported significant(p<.0001) increase in preference for “other way” of getting e-cigarettes (38.1% vs 54.8%) and “other” locations of e-cigarette use (14.7% vs 33.0%). Convenience stores, supermarkets, gas stations (13.2% vs 12.3%), parents (8.3% vs 5.0%), non-store purchase (22.4% vs 15.0%), and internet (5.0% vs 4.4%) were significantly (p<.0001) less popular among this youth. Personal home (31.0% vs 26.7%), another person’s home (18.8% vs 15.1%), parties (9.7% vs 8.4%),restaurants, bars, e-cigarette shops (2.0% vs 1.4%), relative’s house (2.5% vs 1.8%), school (9.1% vs 5.9%), and car(5.2% vs 3.9%) were also less favored among this sample. Conclusions: While public health officials may advocate for improvement in tobacco control (e.g., T21, ad and flavor bans), policy change alone is insufficient to limit youth’s access to e-cigarettes. They may get it from older peers. The MLSA policy may create the fear of getting caught, which explains the popularity of private locations. However, it does not reduce social acceptance among youth. Therefore, other interventions (e.g., client education, community outreach) should be integrated by public health professionals to reduce the social acceptance. Further research should also evaluate how these trends may differ longitudinally and on a national level.
