Factors associated with changes in flavored tobacco products used: Findings from wave 2 and wave 3 (2014–2016) of the population assessment of tobacco and health (PATH) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Flavored non-cigarette tobacco product use is widespread in the U.S. The availability of flavor options could be playing a role in recent increases in use, especially for non-cigarette tobacco products, among youth and young adults. Little is known about specific flavor preferences of youth and adult flavored tobacco product users, as well as how preferences may change over time. METHODS: This study analyzes PATH Study data from completed Wave 2 (2014-2015) and Wave 3 (2015-2016) youth (12-17 years), and adult (18 + years) interviews to estimate the prevalence of flavored non-cigarette tobacco product use. We assess flavor switching by examining changes between flavors and characteristics of those who changed flavors between waves. RESULTS: Across age groups, and at both waves, fruit-flavored products were the most frequently used flavor by past 30-day electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), cigar, cigarillo, and hookah users. In the past 30 days, a higher proportion of youth and young adults used candy/sweets-flavored ENDS than adults. Among adult ENDS users, the odds of changing flavors were highest among younger users and decreased with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Flavored tobacco product use is prevalent across non-cigarette tobacco products. Stability in the number of flavors used, as well as specific flavors, is higher among adult tobacco users, while the use of multiple flavors, and change in specific flavor, is more prevalent among youth tobacco users. Additional longitudinal research can further examine the role flavors play in appeal, product trial, and switching.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".