Adverse childhood experiences and other risk factors associated with adolescent and young adult vaping over time: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vaping among adolescents and young adults is a significant public health concern worldwide. Understanding which risk factors are associated with vaping is important to help inform evidence-based prevention and intervention strategies. There are several gaps in the current literature examining these associations such as limited longitudinal research. We examined the association between parental smoking/vaping, adolescent sex, mental disorders in adolescence, 13 adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and a) any vaping and b) course of vaping across two time points among adolescents and young adults. METHODS: Data were from Waves 1 and 2 of the longitudinal Well-Being and Experiences Study (The WE Study) in Manitoba, Canada which collected data from a community sample of adolescents (14 to 17 years) and their parent/caregiver in Wave 1 in 2017-18 and the adolescents/young adults only in Wave 2 in 2019. A total of 752 adolescents/young adults (72.4% of the original cohort) completed both waves of the study. Binary and multinomial logistic regressions were conducted to understand the relationship between the 16 risk factors and the two vaping outcomes. RESULTS: Vaping prevalence was 45.5% for any vaping, 2.7% for Wave 1 vaping only, 19.7% for new onset Wave 2 vaping, and 21.2% for vaping at both waves. After adjusting for covariates, the majority of risk factors examined were associated with any adolescent or young adult vaping, including: parental smoking or vaping, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, exposure to verbal intimate partner violence, household substance use, household mental illness, parental separation/divorce, parental problems with police, foster care or contact with a child protective organization, an unsafe neighbourhood, and peer victimization. The majority of these risk factors, as well as adolescent mental health and parental gambling, were associated with different courses of vaping across the two time points. CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasize the need for early vaping prevention and identified several ACEs and other factors that were associated with adolescent and young adult vaping and course of vaping. These identified ACEs and risk factors can help inform programs, strategies, and potential groups to target for vaping interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".