Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Flavored e-cigarette use: Characterizing youth, young adult, and adult users

Open access
Harrell, M.B., Weaver, S.R., Loukas, A., Creamer, M., Marti, C.N., Jackson, C.D., Heath, J.W., Nayak, P., Perry, C.L., Pechacek, T.F., Eriksen, M.P.·2017·Preventive Medicine Reports

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate how the use of flavored e-cigarettes varies between youth (12–17 years old), young adults (18–29 years old), and older adults (30 + years old). Cross-sectional surveys of school-going youth ( n = 3907) and young adult college students ( n = 5482) in Texas, and young adults and older adults ( n = 6051) nationwide were administered in 2014–2015. Proportions and 95% confidence intervals were used to describe the percentage of e-cigarette use at initiation and in the past 30 days that was flavored, among current e-cigarette users. Chi-square tests were applied to examine differences by combustible tobacco product use and demographic factors. Most e-cigarette users said their first and “usual” e-cigarettes were flavored. At initiation, the majority of Texas school-going youth (98%), Texas young adult college students (95%), and young adults (71.2%) nationwide said their first e-cigarettes were flavored to taste like something other than tobacco, compared to 44.1% of older adults nationwide. Fruit and candy flavors predominated for all groups; and, for youth, flavors were an especially salient reason to use e-cigarettes. Among adults, the use of tobacco flavor at initiation was common among dual users (e-cigarettes + combustible tobacco), while other flavors were more common among former cigarette smokers (P = 0.03). Restricting the range of e-cigarette flavors (e.g., eliminating sweet flavors, like fruit and candy) may benefit youth and young adult prevention efforts. However, it is unclear what impact this change would have on adult smoking cessation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.11.001

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Harrell, M. B., Weaver, S. R., Loukas, A., Creamer, M., Marti, C. N., Jackson, C. D., Heath, J. W., Nayak, P., Perry, C. L., Pechacek, T. F., & Eriksen, M. P.
Venue
Preventive Medicine Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
5
Pages
33-40
ISSN
2211-3355 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2555859912
Cited by
267
References
6
FWCI
21.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.