4.6 Article

Tobacco Product Harm Perceptions Among US Middle and High School Students, 2016-2020

Journal

JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH
Volume 71, Issue 3, Pages 364-369

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.03.018

Keywords

Youth; Tobacco use; Harm perception

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to examine US youths' harm perceptions towards nondaily use of tobacco products such as e-cigarettes, cigarettes, etc. The results showed that a considerable proportion of middle and high school students in 2020 believed these products cause little to no harm. Over the past few years, perceptions of harm decreased for e-cigarettes, increased for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.
Purpose: The aim of this study is to examine US youths' harm perceptions toward nondaily use of e-cigarettes, cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, and hookahs.Methods: The nationally representative, cross-sectional National Youth Tobacco Survey annually assessed the following: How much do you think people harm themselves when they [use tobacco products] some days but not every day? Weighted estimates for 2020 were generated overall (grades 6-12) and by select demographics. Multivariable regression examined linear and quadratic changes during 2016-2020 (excluding cigars).Results: In 2020, the prevalence of middle and high school students reporting no or little harm (vs. some or a lot) was 20.1% for e-cigarettes, 17.4% for hookahs, 14.6% for cigars, 13.5% for smokeless tobacco, and 11.0% for cigarettes. During 2016-2020, perceptions of no or little harm decreased for e-cigarettes, increased for cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, and exhibited nonlinear changes for hookahs.Discussion: Most youth are aware of tobacco product harms, but opportunities exist to educate youth about the harms of nondaily tobacco product use.Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine.

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