Awareness and use of short-fill e-liquids by youth in England in 2021: findings from the ITC Youth Tobacco and Vaping Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Refillable e-cigarettes were popular among youth in England in 2021. The UK Tobacco and Related Products Regulations (TRPR) limits e-liquids to 20 mg/mL of nicotine in a 10 mL bottle. Short-fill e-liquids, which are not covered by TRPR regulations, are typically nicotine-free and come in larger, underfilled bottles allowing customisation with the addition of 'nicotine shots'. This paper investigates awareness, use, and reasons for use of short-fill e-liquids among youth in England. METHODS: Data are from the online 2021 International Tobacco Control Youth Survey, comprising 4224 youth (aged 16-19 years) in England. Weighted logistic regression models investigated associations between awareness and past 30-day use of short-fills by smoking status, vaping status, nicotine strength vaped and participant demographics. Reasons for use were also reported. RESULTS: Approximately one-quarter (23.0%) of youth in England reported awareness of short-fill e-liquids. Among youth who had vaped in the past 30 days, 22.1% had used short-fills in the past 30 days; use was most prevalent among those who were also smoking (43.2%) and those who reported usually vaping nicotine concentrations of 2.1% (21 mg/mL) or more (40.8%). 'Convenience of a bigger bottle' was the most selected reason for use (45.0%), followed by 'less expensive than regular e-liquids' (37.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of short-fills was common among youth in 2021, including among those who had never vaped or smoked. Among youth who vaped in the past 30 days, short-fill use was more prevalent among those who also smoked and those who vaped nicotine-containing e-liquids. Integration of short-fill products into existing e-cigarette regulations should be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 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".