Use of JUUL E-cigarettes Among Youth in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: JUUL has emerged as the leading brand in a rapidly evolving electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) market. JUUL is distinctive for its novel nicotine delivery method that results in high nicotine concentrations, as well as its sleek, discreet design. This study examined national estimates of JUUL among youth in the United States, including whether JUUL users report different patterns of use compared to users of other e-cigarettes. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the US arm of the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project (ITC) Youth Tobacco and E-cigarette Survey, an online survey conducted in July-August 2017 with youth aged 16-19 years recruited from consumer panels (n = 4086). RESULTS: Overall, 14.2% of respondents had used an e-cigarette in the past 30 days. JUUL was the second-most popular brand reported by past-30-day e-cigarette users (9.7%). Compared to e-cigarette users of other brands, JUUL users were significantly older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.56 to 4.01) and reported a greater number of computers in the household (a socioeconomic status proxy; aOR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.22 to 1.96), with no differences by sex, race/ethnicity, or student status. Controlling for sociodemographic variables, JUUL users were more likely than other e-cigarette users to have ever tried to quit e-cigarettes (aOR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.12 to 6.30), with no differences observed by smoking status, frequency of e-cigarette use, urges to use e-cigarettes, or perceived addiction to e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS: JUUL was among the most popular e-cigarette brands among youth, and there were few differences in sociodemographic profile or patterns of use between users of JUUL and other e-cigarette brands. IMPLICATIONS: This study examined national estimates of JUUL e-cigarette use among youth in the United States, during the early phase of JUUL's popularity. JUUL was among the most popular e-cigarette brands among youth, and there were few differences in sociodemographic profile or patterns of use between JUUL and other e-cigarette brands. The findings help to characterize the rapid rise of this new product category within the rapidly evolving e-cigarette market at a time when the US Food and Drug Administration and public health community are seeking to understand JUUL and its appeal among young people.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".