Household vaping bans and youth e-cigarette use

IF 5.2 1区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Addiction Pub Date : 2023-09-15 DOI:10.1111/add.16335
Jeremy Staff, Jessica M. Mongilio, Jennifer L. Maggs, Mike Vuolo, Brian C. Kelly
{"title":"Household vaping bans and youth e-cigarette use","authors":"Jeremy Staff, Jessica M. Mongilio, Jennifer L. Maggs, Mike Vuolo, Brian C. Kelly","doi":"10.1111/add.16335","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AIMS The aims of this study were to measure whether household bans on vaping were associated with lower odds of youth past-month vaping when compared with (1) otherwise similar youth whose households did not have a vaping ban (using coarsened exact matching); and (2) themselves in waves when their household did not have a ban (using hybrid panel models). We used the same analytical strategies to examine cross-sectional associations between household smoking bans and adolescents' past-month cigarette smoking. DESIGN This was a longitudinal study using data from a nationally representative sample of youth (age 12-17 years) in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. SETTING United States of America. PARTICIPANTS A total of 16 214 adolescents followed over 48 103 total observations (approximately three waves). MEASUREMENTS Measurements comprised youth past-month e-cigarette and cigarette use and parent-reported household bans on vaping and smoking. Potential confounders were prior adolescent smoking, vaping, and other nicotine product use; parent current smoking, vaping, and other nicotine use; adolescent peer e-cigarette/cigarette use; parental monitoring; and demographic characteristics. FINDINGS Before matching, smoking bans were associated with 46% lower odds of youth smoking [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.70] and vaping bans with 37% lower odds of youth e-cigarette use (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.50-0.80). However, households with and without bans differed significantly on all confounders before matching. After matching, household vaping bans were associated with 56% lower odds of youth vaping (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.33-0.58). Results from hybrid panel models also revealed 37% lower odds of vaping in waves when youth lived in a vape-free household compared to waves when they did not (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.50-0.78). Associations between smoking bans and youth smoking were not statistically significant after matching or when using hybrid panel models. CONCLUSIONS Household vaping bans appear to be associated with lower odds of past-month vaping among US adolescents, compared with similar youth whose households did not have a ban and to themselves in waves when their households did not have a ban.","PeriodicalId":109,"journal":{"name":"Addiction","volume":"119 1","pages":"74-83"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Addiction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.16335","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

AIMS The aims of this study were to measure whether household bans on vaping were associated with lower odds of youth past-month vaping when compared with (1) otherwise similar youth whose households did not have a vaping ban (using coarsened exact matching); and (2) themselves in waves when their household did not have a ban (using hybrid panel models). We used the same analytical strategies to examine cross-sectional associations between household smoking bans and adolescents' past-month cigarette smoking. DESIGN This was a longitudinal study using data from a nationally representative sample of youth (age 12-17 years) in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. SETTING United States of America. PARTICIPANTS A total of 16 214 adolescents followed over 48 103 total observations (approximately three waves). MEASUREMENTS Measurements comprised youth past-month e-cigarette and cigarette use and parent-reported household bans on vaping and smoking. Potential confounders were prior adolescent smoking, vaping, and other nicotine product use; parent current smoking, vaping, and other nicotine use; adolescent peer e-cigarette/cigarette use; parental monitoring; and demographic characteristics. FINDINGS Before matching, smoking bans were associated with 46% lower odds of youth smoking [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41-0.70] and vaping bans with 37% lower odds of youth e-cigarette use (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.50-0.80). However, households with and without bans differed significantly on all confounders before matching. After matching, household vaping bans were associated with 56% lower odds of youth vaping (OR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.33-0.58). Results from hybrid panel models also revealed 37% lower odds of vaping in waves when youth lived in a vape-free household compared to waves when they did not (OR = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.50-0.78). Associations between smoking bans and youth smoking were not statistically significant after matching or when using hybrid panel models. CONCLUSIONS Household vaping bans appear to be associated with lower odds of past-month vaping among US adolescents, compared with similar youth whose households did not have a ban and to themselves in waves when their households did not have a ban.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家用电子烟禁令和青少年电子烟使用情况
研究目的 本研究的目的是测量家庭禁烟令是否与青少年上月吸烟的较低几率有关,并与以下两类青少年进行比较:(1)家庭没有禁烟令的其他类似青少年(采用粗略精确匹配法);(2)家庭没有禁烟令时的青少年(采用混合面板模型)。我们使用相同的分析策略来研究家庭禁烟令与青少年上月吸烟量之间的横截面关联。 设计 这是一项纵向研究,使用的数据来自烟草与健康人口评估研究(Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study)中具有全国代表性的青少年样本(12-17 岁)。 地点 美国。 参与者 共有 16 214 名青少年接受了 48 103 次观察(约三波)。 测量内容 包括青少年上月电子烟和卷烟使用情况以及家长报告的家庭禁烟情况。潜在的混杂因素包括青少年之前吸烟、吸食电子烟和使用其他尼古丁产品的情况;父母目前吸烟、吸食电子烟和使用其他尼古丁的情况;青少年同伴使用电子烟/香烟的情况;父母的监督情况;以及人口统计学特征。 研究结果 在匹配之前,禁烟令与青少年吸烟几率降低46%有关[几率比(OR)= 0.54;95%置信区间(CI)= 0.41-0.70],禁烟令与青少年使用电子烟几率降低37%有关(OR = 0.63;95% CI = 0.50-0.80)。然而,在匹配前,有禁令的家庭和没有禁令的家庭在所有混杂因素上都存在显著差异。匹配后,家庭禁烟与青少年吸烟几率降低 56% 相关(OR = 0.44;95% CI = 0.33-0.58)。混合面板模型的结果还显示,当青少年生活在禁烟家庭时,其吸食烟草的几率比不禁烟家庭时低 37%(OR = 0.63;95% CI = 0.50-0.78)。在匹配后或使用混合面板模型时,禁烟令与青少年吸烟之间的关系在统计学上并不显著。 结论 家庭禁烟令似乎与美国青少年过去一个月吸烟的几率较低有关,与家庭没有禁烟令的同类青少年以及家庭没有禁烟令时的青少年相比是如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Addiction
Addiction 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
319
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Addiction publishes peer-reviewed research reports on pharmacological and behavioural addictions, bringing together research conducted within many different disciplines. Its goal is to serve international and interdisciplinary scientific and clinical communication, to strengthen links between science and policy, and to stimulate and enhance the quality of debate. We seek submissions that are not only technically competent but are also original and contain information or ideas of fresh interest to our international readership. We seek to serve low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries as well as more economically developed countries. Addiction’s scope spans human experimental, epidemiological, social science, historical, clinical and policy research relating to addiction, primarily but not exclusively in the areas of psychoactive substance use and/or gambling. In addition to original research, the journal features editorials, commentaries, reviews, letters, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Effect of a peer-led emergency department behavioral intervention on non-fatal opioid overdose: 18-month outcome in the Navigator randomized controlled trial. Client preferences for the design and delivery of injectable opioid agonist treatment services: Results from a best-worst scaling task. School-based interventions targeting substance use among young people in low-and-middle-income countries: A scoping review. The relationship between cannabis and nicotine use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. What is the prevalence of anabolic-androgenic steroid use among women? A systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1