Evidence Hub

Longitudinal e-cigarette and cigarette use among US youth in the PATH Study (2013-2015)

Cassandra A. Stanton, M. Bansal-Travers, Amanda L. Johnson, E. Sharma, Lauren Katz, Bridget K. Ambrose, M. Silveira, Hannah R. Day et al.

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2019

1,020 participants · 51 citations

Abstract

Background

Evidence is accumulating that youth who try ENDS (e-cigarettes) may go on to try cigarettes. This analysis examines the bidirectional patterns of ENDS and cigarette use among US youth over one year and uses propensity score matching (PSM) to examine frequency of ENDS use on changes in cigarette smoking.

Methods

Our analysis included 11,996 partcipants who had two waves of available data (W1 2013-2014; W2 2014-2015) drawn from the longitudinal Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Cross-sectional weighted prevalence estimates are reported for cigarettes and ENDS. We used PSM to estimate the likelihood of ENDS use at W1 and to draw matched analytic samples, then used regression (logistic or linear) models to examine the effect of W1 ENDS use on W2 cigarette smoking. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

In weighted analyses, 69.3% of W1 past-30-day cigarette smokers exhibited past-30-day smoking at W2; 42.2% of W1 past-30-day ENDS users were using ENDS at W2. W1 ever use of either product was similarly associated with W2 new use of the other product. Unweighted PSM models indicated: W1 cigarette-naïve ENDS use was associated with W2 ever cigarette smoking (n = 676 ; aOR 3.21, 95%CI = 1.95, 5.45, p < 0.001); W1 ever ENDS use did not affect change in cigarette frequency at W2 (n = 1020, beta=0.31, 95%CI = -0.76, 1.39, p = 0.57); 1-5 days ENDS use compared to ever, no past-30-day ENDS use was associated with a statistically significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 1,020 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free