Tobacco and nicotine product use patterns and trends among United States youth and young adults (2021–2024)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To examine patterns of tobacco and nicotine product use, identify changes in usage trends, and determine the frequency of use across exclusive, dual, and polyuse patterns and the influence of sociodemographic variables among United States youth and young adults. Methods: Data were collected from a repeated, cross-sectional survey of United States young people (aged 15-24 years) from 2021 to 2024. Joinpoint regression was used to determine quarter-year percentage change in usage trends. Chi-square tests and multinomial logistic regression were applied to 2024 data to assess associations with sociodemographic variables. Results: The most common usage pattern was dual use of e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco products. Quarter-year percentage change for dual use of e-cigarettes and oral nicotine pouches increased by 14.75 % from Quarter 3 2023 to Quarter 3 2024. Quarter-year percentage change for polyuse of e-cigarettes, combustible tobacco products, and oral nicotine pouches increased by 6.82 % from Quarter 3 2022 to Quarter 3 2024. Use patterns varied by age, gender identity, race and ethnicity, and perceived financial status. Conclusions: Results indicate significant changes in dual and polyuse of tobacco and nicotine products. These shifts underscore the importance of ongoing surveillance and targeted interventions to mitigate health risks and reduce the burdens of nicotine addiction in this vulnerable population.
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".