4.5 Article

Youth Vaping and Tobacco Use in Context in the United States: Results From the 2018 National Youth Tobacco Survey

Journal

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 447-453

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa010

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. New York University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The National Youth Tobacco Survey reported an increase in youth vaping between 2017 and 2018. However, most students did not use any tobacco or vapor products in the past 30 days, with a significant portion of students who did vape also reporting concurrent use of traditional tobacco products.
Introduction: According to the National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), youth e-cigarette use (vaping) rose between 2017 and 2018. Frequency of vaping and concurrent past 30-day (p30d) use of e-cigarettes and tobacco products have not been reported. Methods: We analyzed the 2018 NYTS (N = 20 189) for vaping among all students (middle and high school; 6-12th grades; 9-19 years old) by frequency of vaping, exclusive vaping, p30d poly-product use (vaping and use of one or more tobacco product), and any past tobacco product use. Results: In 2018, 81.4% of students had not used any tobacco or vapor product in the p30d, and 86.2% had not vaped in the p30d. Among all students, of the 13.8% vaped in the p30d, just over half vaped on <= 5 days (7.0%), and roughly a quarter each vaped on 6-19 days (3.2%) and on 20+ days (3.6%). Almost three quarters of p30d vapers (9.9%) reported past or concurrent tobacco use and the remainder (3.9%) were tobacco naive. 2.8% of students were tobacco naive and vaped on <= 5 days; 0.7% were tobacco-naive and vaped on 6-19 days, and 0.4% were tobacco-naive and vaped on 20+ days. Conclusions: Vaping increased among US youth in 2018 over 2017. The increases are characterized by patterns of low p30d vaping frequency and high poly-product use, and a low prevalence of vaping among more frequent but tobacco naive vapers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available