Search

Introduction: Self-reports of electronic cigarette (ECIG) device and liquid characteristics are not always accurate or consistent with characteristics as measured by researchers. Two methods for measuring ECIG characteristics were compared: user self-reports and rater-coded pictures. Methods: Exclusive ECIG users (N = 321) reported on device (disposable, refillable, adjustable power, brand) and liquid (nicotine concentration, formulation, flavor) characteristics. To measure device type, they chose the term that best described their device ("cig-alike," "vape pen," "mod," "pod," "don't know") and the picture that best resembled their device (cig-alike, vape pen, box mod, USB-shaped pod, teardrop-shaped pod, none). Respondents uploaded device and liquid pictures, and independent raters coded these same features. Agreement between methods was examined with Cohen's kappa and intra-class correlations, including with "don't know" responses included and excluded from analyses. Results: Regardless of how "don't know" responses were treated, agreement was highest for disposable (95.3–97.7%), refillable (96.3%), adjustable power (83.6–88.7%), and brand (77.9–80.4%), and lower for nicotine concentration (72.7%), nicotine formulation (58.6–79.4%), and flavor (66.2%). For device type, agreement was moderate using both term-based (67.9–78.8%) and picture resemblance-based (71.7%) items. For terms, the greatest discrepancy was for devices classified as "vape pens" by self-reports; of these, 70.6% were classified as "pods" by raters. For picture resemblance, ∼13% of users reported that their device resembled none of the pictures; raters classified these devices as USB-shaped pods (50.0%) and mods (23.8%). Conclusions: Self-reports may be sufficient for measuring some characteristics (brand, disposable, refillable, adjustable power), but not others (nicotine concentration and formulation, and some flavor). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: This study aims to identify adolescent patterns of polytobacco use and measure transitions between patterns over time. Design: Longitudinal analysis using data derived from waves 1–4 (2013–18) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study. Transitions in tobacco use patterns were examined via latent transition analysis, and then, socio‐demographic characteristics were used to predict transitions via logistic regression. Setting: United States. Participants: Participants included 975 adolescents who used at least one tobacco product at any wave (W1 mean age = 13.29, standard deviation = 0.86; W4 54.2% male; 54.5% white, 25.9% Hispanic). Measurements Measurements included past 30‐day use of cigarettes, electronic cigarettes (e‐cigs), traditional cigars, cigarillos, filtered cigars, snus, smokeless tobacco (SLT) or hookah. Findings Six latent classes were identified. Cigarette users (43.5–58.8%) and SLT users (50.8–79.6%) tended to persist in their use over time. E‐cig users began to probably transition to non‐users (80.0%), but became more likely to persist in this use over time (31.1%). Non‐users at a given wave were most likely to transition to e‐cig users (8.5–43.7%) or cigarette users (6.7–28.6%). Cigarillo/poly‐users and hookah/poly‐users displayed more variable transition patterns. Adolescents were more likely to transition to non‐use (versus become/remain e‐cig users) if they were older (cigarette users, SLT users), younger (e‐cig users), other race (SLT users), male (SLT users) or had less‐educated parents (SLT users) compared with their counterparts. Hispanic (versus white) cigarette users were more likely to transition to non‐users than to persist in this use. Conclusions: Among adolescents in the United States, patterns of tobacco use characterized by the use, mainly, of single, specific products appear to be stable, particularly by late adolescence. In contrast, patterns characterized by polytobacco use appear to be more variable and may represent experimentation without specialization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Extant electronic cigarette (ECIG) dependence measures are largely adapted from those designed for cigarette smoking, though few have been evaluated for their psychometric properties.Methods: Never-smoking ECIG users (N=134) participating in an online survey completed four dependence measures: Penn State Electronic Cigarette Dependence Index (PSECDI), E-Cigarette Dependence Scale (EDS-4), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Tobacco Use Disorder (DSM-5), and Glover Nilsson Behavioral Questionnaire (GNBQ). They also reported on their ECIG use characteristics (e.g. behaviors, reasons).Results: Internal consistency was highest for the EDS-4 (Cronbach's α = .88) followed by the GNBQ (α = .75), PSECDI (α = .72), and DSM (α = .71). Confirmatory factor analyses revealed a single-factor structure for the PSECDI, EDS-4, and GNBQ. For the DSM-5, however, two items did not load significantly (ECIG use interferes with responsibilities; reduce/give up activities because of ECIG use). Significant correlations were observed between all measures and the number of ECIG use days/week and/or years using ECIGs, as well as between DSM-5 scores and the number of ECIG quit attempts and initiation age. Endorsement of using ECIGs because "I like flavors" was correlated positively with DSM-5 and GNBQ scores.Conclusions: All dependence measures evaluated herein demonstrated adequate reliability and construct validity. Future work should focus on determining which aspects of dependence are those unique to ECIG use, and subsequently developing a more comprehensive measure of ECIG dependence.Implications: The measures assessed herein - PSECDI, EDS-4, DSM-5, and GNBQ - demonstrated adequate to good reliability and construct validity among a sample of never-smoking ECIG users. The dependence domains covered across measures were related yet distinct. Findings demonstrate the need for future evaluation of these different domains to determine which are the most salient characteristics of ECIG dependence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: ECIG use has increased among non-smokers, with the potential negative consequence of developing nicotine dependence. ECIG users report withdrawal symptoms upon abstinence, though the significance of these symptoms has been questioned. This preliminary study aimed to characterize the early timecourse of ECIG withdrawal under forced abstinence.Methods: Fifteen never-smoking ECIG users completed two conditions whereby participants either abstained from ECIG use (abstinence) or used their own ECIG (ad lib) for 3 h. Puff topography in this latter condition was measured via video observation. Outcome measures included heart rate, subjective ratings of withdrawal, cognitive performance, and choice behavior.Results: Heart rate was lower during abstinence compared to ad lib use (F = 12.60, p < .01, ƞp2 = 0.47). Higher levels of craving (F = 4.98, p < .05, ƞp2 = 0.26) and lower levels of nicotine effects (e.g., dizzy, F = 4.62, p < .05, ƞp2 = 0.36) were reported during abstinence compared to ad lib use. Interaction effects were observed for both factors of the Questionnaire of Smoking Urges: Brief (Fs > 3.56, ps < .05, ƞp2s = 0.21-0.27), with factor scores increasing from baseline to 90 min in the abstinent condition only. Inhibitory control was impaired at 120 min in the abstinent condition only (F = 7.51, p < .05, ƞp2 = 0.50).Conclusions: Never-smoking ECIG users experienced aversive withdrawal symptoms within 2-3 h of abstinence. Future work should include other control conditions, such as placebo ECIGs or nicotine replacement therapy, and biomarkers of nicotine exposure, as well as examine withdrawal as a function of device type.Implications: Never-smoking ECIG users experience some aversive nicotine withdrawal symptoms within two to three hours of abstinence. Relative to ad lib ECIG use, abstinence decreased heart rate and inhibitory control, as well as increased subjective ratings of withdrawal such as craving and intention to vape. Those same symptoms might be suppressed by self-administration of ECIGs. Experiencing withdrawal upon abstinence may indicate that ECIGs can cause dependence without a history of other tobacco use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]