ArticleTobacco regulatory science2020
An Investigation of Definitions of Experimental Vaping among Youth.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting Adolescent Electronic Cigarette Use: Differences by Never, Ever, and Current Users.Journal of pediatric psychology · 2022Article
- Critical appraisal of the European Union Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) Preliminary Opinion on electronic cigarettes.Harm reduction journal · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Identifying which youth are experimenting with vaping could aid the development and evaluation of targeted media campaigns and research and surveillance activities. In this study, we sought to identify behavioral definitions that best differentiate youth experimenters and established vapers. Methods: We conducted an online survey with a non-probability sample of 1500 youth aged 13-17 who reported ever vaping. Based on recency and lifetime vaping, we constructed 12 definitions of experimenters versus more established or recent users. We examined how well each definition discriminated between experimenters and established/recent users based on correlates (eg, vaping dependence, harm perceptions) using multivariate tests of mean differences, controlling for multiple variables, and ratios of between- to within-group variance. Results: Four definitions best distinguished between experimenters and more established/recent users (ie, had greater Hotelling T Conclusion: Ever vapers are not a monolithic group. Our results suggest that past 30-day use is an important criterion for distinguishing experimenters from more established users. Understanding nuances between user groups could lead to greater differentiation among ever vapers and aid campaign targeting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42370033PMC13296707What 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.