4.6 Article

Electronic-Cigarette Smoking Experience Among Adolescents

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
Volume 49, Issue 5, Pages 542-546

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.08.001

Keywords

Electronic cigarette; Adolescents; Awareness rates; Contact routes; Internet

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare in Korea
  2. Hanyang Women's University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To investigate the level of awareness and contact routes to electronic cigarette (e-cigarette), and to identify significant factors that may affect adolescent use of e-cigarettes; this study explores the experience of e-cigarettes among adolescents. Methods: Using the data from the 2008 Health Promotion Fund Project in Korea, we used a hierarchical logistic regression analysis to evaluate gender, level of school, family smoking, perception of peer influence, satisfaction in school life, and cigarette smoking experience as predictors of trying e-cigarettes among adolescents in five schools in Korea. Results: Overall, 444 (10.2%) students responded as having seen or heard of e-cigarettes. Twenty-two (.5%) students reported as having used an e-cigarette. The contact routes of information on e-cigarettes were the Internet (249, 46.4%), friends (150, 27.9%), television (59, 11.0%), books (50, 9.3%), and others (29, 5.4%). The following factors were determined to be statistically significant predictors of e-cigarette experience: male gender, perception of peer influence, satisfaction in school life, and cigarette smoking experience. Conclusions: In light of this fact, continuous attention needs to be paid on the marketing of e-cigarettes on Internet sites to prevent adolescents from being exposed to unsupported claims about e-cigarettes and to provide appropriate information on health effects. (C) 2011 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available