ArticlePreventive medicine2026
Characteristics associated with device type used among middle school and high school students who currently used E-cigarettes in the U.S., 2023.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn 2023, e-cigarettes were the most commonly used tobacco product among US middle and high school students, with most reporting use of disposable devices. This study assessed characteristics associated with device type use among youth currently using e-cigarettes.
methodsData from the 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey were used to describe and compare select demographic characteristics, e-cigarette use patterns, and other tobacco use by device type groups (disposable vs. non-disposable [pods, cartridges, tanks, mods]) among youth who currently use (past 30-day) e-cigarettes. Adjusted prevalence ratios were calculated to assess the associations of device type with different characteristics.
resultsAmong youth currently using e-cigarettes, more disposable users reported any sweet flavor use (82.1 % vs. 66.3 %), while fewer reported use of any menthol flavor (18.7 % vs. 36.1 %) or any tobacco-flavored/unflavored products (11.0 % vs. 19.3 %) compared to non-disposable users. After adjusting for covariates, youth using sweet flavors (adjusted PR [aPR]:1.30, 95 %CI: 1.08, 1.56), other flavors (aPR:1.17, 95 %CI: 1.04, 1.33), or who got their e-cigarettes themselves (aPR:1.13, 95 %CI: 1.01, 1.25) had a higher prevalence of disposable e-cigarette use compared to non-disposable, whereas those using menthol flavor (aPR:0.77, 95 %CI: 0.59, 1.00), tobacco-flavored/unflavored products (aPR:0.86, 95 %CI: 0.75, 1.00), or who got their e-cigarettes from a friend (aPR:0.85, 95 %CI: 0.76, 0.97) had a lower prevalence of disposable e-cigarette use.
conclusionsThe present study found differences in reported flavor type and access to e-cigarettes between disposable and non-disposable e-cigarette users. These results highlight the appeal and accessibility of disposable e-cigarettes among youth, particularly those in sweet flavors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.