Objective: We aimed to characterize male and female adolescents' use of e-cigarettes, cigarettes and dual use, and seven symptoms of nicotine/tobacco dependence using four waves of national data from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study.
Methods: The analytic sample included 2902 adolescents 12-17 years who indicated past 30-day e-cigarette or cigarette use at least once between 2013-2018. Items from the Wisconsin Inventory of Smoking Dependence Motives (WISDM-68) were used to report dependence symptoms.
Results: Compared to cigarette users, exclusive e-cigarette users reported fewer symptoms of nicotine dependency. There were no differences between males and females and the odds of any reported dependency symptom. Among cigarette only users, the odds of indicating that their tobacco use helps them think better (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.08, 5.23) and wanting tobacco after waking up (AOR = 5.50, 95% CI = 1.10, 27.5) was higher among females when compared to males.
Conclusions: The current study extends earlier findings regarding subgroup differences in nicotine/tobacco dependency symptoms participating in the PATH Study and highlights the importance of identifying nicotine/tobacco dependency symptoms when counseling adolescent males and females.
Objective: Engaging youth in planning, developing, and implementing substance misuse prevention efforts can improve those efforts. However, specific local policies and systems constrain youth engagement practice. This study examines how to engage youth in substance misuse prevention within state prevention systems.
Methods: In the qualitative study, semi-structured interviews with 13 prevention providers in the North Carolina prevention system were conducted via video call and transcribed and analyzed via thematic and codebook approaches. Procedures are reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist.
Results: Providers viewed youth engagement favorably yet mostly did not differentiate between youth-targeted prevention initiatives and youth-engaged initiatives. Findings reveal how state-level decisions, such as definitions and funding policies, support and challenge how providers implement youth engagement.
Conclusions: To encourage youth engagement, state prevention systems should clarify for providers the distinction between prevention efforts targeted to youth and those that engage youth in planning and implementing and define which activities are desirable and what the role of youth should be in the activities. Finally, prevention providers need support for youth-engaged approaches to prevention, specifically training for youth and adult allies and opportunities for knowledge-sharing.