Electronic Cigarette Use During Preconception and/or Pregnancy: Prevalence, Characteristics, and Concurrent Mental Health Conditions
Open accessAbstract
Background: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are increasing in popularity in the United States. Prior prevalence estimates of e-cigarette use in pregnancy range from 1% to 15%. Materials and Methods: We assessed prevalence of e-cigarette and conventional cigarette use during preconception or pregnancy in a large sample of racially/ethnically diverse, low-income pregnant women via telephone survey (2015–2018) and compared sociodemographic characteristics and mental health conditions. Results: Of 1365 pregnant women surveyed, 54 (4.0%) reported e-cigarette use (regardless of other tobacco use), 372 (27.3%) reported conventional cigarette use without e-cigarette use (conventional cigarette use), and 939 (68.8%) reported no tobacco or nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) product use during the preconception period and/or pregnancy. Seventy-four percent of women using e-cigarettes reported also using conventional cigarettes. Women who used e-cigarettes were more likely to report high school education or greater, income <$30,000, White race, and non-Hispanic ethnicity than women who used conventional cigarettes. Women who used e-cigarettes were more likely than women who used conventional cigarettes or no tobacco/NRT to report symptoms of depression. Women who used e-cigarettes and women who used conventional cigarettes were more likely than women who used no tobacco/NRT to report a history of severe mental health conditions, alcohol use during pregnancy, and marijuana or other drug use during preconception. Conclusions: In this sample, 4% of women used e-cigarettes during preconception and/or pregnancy and most also used conventional cigarettes. Increased efforts by providers to screen for tobacco (including use of e-cigarette) and polysubstance use and to provide cessation services could improve outcomes of mothers and children.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Three studies included all vapers without controlling for smoking status and were rated zero because smoking is likely to be the most important confounder.
“For the criterion ‘Were appropriate confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?’, three studies included all vapers without controlling for smoking status and therefore were rated as zero [38, 51, 56] as smoking is likely to be the most important confounder.”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
One study observed that vapers (combining exclusive-vapers and dual-users) had a greater risk of depression symptoms during pregnancy than non-users or exclusive-smokers.
“One study observed that vapers (combining exclusive-vapers and dual-users) had a greater risk of depression symptoms during pregnancy than non-users or exclusive-smokers [51].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
Neither of the latter two studies controlled for smoking status and in one study dual-users reported smoking more than exclusive-smokers.
“Neither of the latter two studies controlled for smoking status and in one study dual-users reported smoking more than exclusive-smokers [51].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
Six studies examined specific maternal pregnancy or postpartum outcomes.
“Six studies examined specific maternal pregnancy or postpartum outcomes [16,36,47,51,55,56, see Table 4].”
From Vaping during pregnancy: a systematic review of health outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 48
- Authors
- Rollins, L. G., Sokol, N. A., McCallum, M., England, L., Matteson, K., Werner, E., & Stroud, L. R.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Miriam Hospital (US)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rollins, L.G.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Women's Health
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 780-788
- ISSN
- 1059-7115 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-9996
- 1931-843X
- PMC
- PMC7307667
- OpenAlex
- W3007301432
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12
- FWCI
- 4.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Women s Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (T32AA007459)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA045492, R01DA036999)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- electronic cigarettes, conventional cigarette smoking, tobacco use prevalence, depression, mental illness, polydrug use, alcohol use during pregnancy, cannabis use, nicotine replacement therapy, tobacco cessation, low-income pregnant women, sociodemographic factors
- MeSH terms
- Tobacco Smoking, Adolescent, Adult, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Poverty, Pregnancy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Prevalence, Substance-Related Disorders, Young Adult, Tobacco Products, Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems
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