Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32718309›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Youth vaping and smoking and parental vaping: a panel survey.

Michael J Green, Linsay Gray, Helen Sweeting

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Acute nicotine poisoning in a 2-year-old child - A case report of a near-death event.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2025
    Article
  6. Trajectories of Nicotine Use Leading to Dual and Cyclical Tobacco Product Use in Young Adults.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael J GreenMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK. michael.green@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3193-2452
Linsay GrayMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK.
Helen SweetingMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3AX, UK.
MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU12Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/12Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConcerns remain about potential negative impacts of e-cigarettes including possibilities that: youth e-cigarette use (vaping) increases risk of youth smoking; and vaping by parents may have impacts on their children's vaping and smoking behaviour.

methodsWith panel data from 3291 youth aged 10-15 years from the 7th wave of the UK Understanding Society Survey (2015-2017), we estimated effects of youth vaping on youth smoking (ever, current and past year initiation), and of parental vaping on youth smoking and vaping, and examined whether the latter differed by parental smoking status. Propensity weighting was used to adjust for measured confounders and estimate average effects of vaping for all youth, and among youth who vaped. E-values were calculated to assess the strength of unmeasured confounding influences needed to negate our estimates.

resultsAssociations between youth vaping and youth smoking were attenuated considerably by adjustment for measured confounders. Estimated average effects of youth vaping on youth smoking were stronger for all youth (e.g. OR for smoking initiation: 32.5; 95% CI: 9.8-107.1) than among youth who vaped (OR: 4.4; 0.6-30.9). Relatively strong unmeasured confounding would be needed to explain these effects. Associations between parental vaping and youth vaping were explained by measured confounders. Estimates indicated effects of parental vaping on youth smoking, especially for youth with ex-smoking parents (e.g. OR for smoking initiation: 11.3; 2.7-46.4) rather than youth with currently smoking parents (OR: 1.0; 0.2-6.4), but these could be explained by relatively weak unmeasured confounding.

conclusionsWhile measured confounding accounted for much of the associations between youth vaping and youth smoking, indicating support for underlying propensities, our estimates suggested residual effects that could only be explained away by considerable unmeasured confounding or by smoking leading to vaping. Estimated effects of youth vaping on youth smoking were stronger among the general youth population than among the small group of youth who actually vaped. Associations of parental vaping with youth smoking and vaping were either explained by measured confounding or could be relatively easily explained by unmeasured confounding.

Indexed as

Parent-Child RelationsParentsAdolescentBehavior, AddictiveChildElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleSmokingSurveys and QuestionnairesVapingE-cigarettesParentsSmokingYouth

Identifiers

PMID32718309
PMCPMC7385857
OpenAlexW3045503564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.