Awareness and perceived behaviour changes following the New York state vaping flavour ban, 2021–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Despite an electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) flavour ban in New York (NY) since May 2020, most youth who vape continue to report vaping restricted flavours. This study aims to examine youth awareness and perceived behaviour change associated with the NY vaping flavour ban. METHODS: NY cross-sectional data from 2021 and 2022 ITC Youth Survey were combined and analysed (N=1014). Weighted analyses were used to describe awareness and understanding of the e-cigarette flavour ban, as well as changes in tobacco use behaviour. RESULTS: Only 0.9% (n=8) of NY youth understood the flavour ban, in that they were both aware of the flavour ban in all stores and accurately reported that all non-tobacco flavours were banned. Awareness and understanding of the flavour ban differed by vaping status (p<0.01): respondents who had vaped in the past 12 months or 30 days were more likely (adjusted OR (aOR)=2.15, 95% CI 1.34, 3.45; aOR=2.07, 95% CI 1.17, 3.64, respectively) to be aware of the flavour ban but misunderstand the stores or flavours included. Of the majority of youth who reported awareness of a flavour ban and vaped (n=122) or smoked (n=78) in the past 12 months reported no changes in behaviour (64.0% and 69.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-third of NY youth, regardless of vaping status, reported that an e-cigarette flavour ban was present where they live. Further, most youth who were aware of the ban misunderstood which flavours were restricted and/or that the ban applied to all stores that sold e-cigarettes. Increased enforcement and educational efforts could improve awareness and understanding of the NY e-cigarette flavour ban.
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".