Dataset Information

State T21, Restrictions on Flavored E-Cigarette Products, and Non-Medical Cannabis Sales Legalization in Relation to Young Adult Reports of Vape Shop Age Verification and Product Offerings: A Multilevel Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Vape shop practices related to age verification and product offerings (e.g., other tobacco, cannabis), which may affect young-adult tobacco/substance use, are likely impacted by state-level policies (i.e., Tobacco 21 [T21], flavored e-cigarette restrictions, non-medical cannabis legalization). Using data from young adults (18-34 years) in 6 US states representing variability in whether/when they implemented the aforementioned policies, this study focused on past 6-month e-cigarette users who visited vape shops (Wave 1 [W1]: September-December 2018, n = 1127; W2: September-December 2019, n = 702; W3: September-December 2020, n = 549). Multilevel modeling examined T21 in relation to participants' reports of age verification at last vape shop visit (among those < 27), and flavor restrictions and cannabis legalization in relation to noticing other tobacco or cannabis products at last visit. At W1-W3, 69.7%, 78.7%, and 75.8% of participants < 27 reported age verification, and participants increasingly noticed other tobacco (W2: 36.9%; W3: 48.6%) and cannabis products (W1: 25.8%; W2: 41.3%; W3: 58.3%). State T21 was unrelated to age verification (aOR = 1.19, 95%CI = 0.80-1.79); flavored e-cigarette restrictions correlated with noticing other tobacco products (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.10-3.51); flavored e-cigarette restrictions (aOR = 2.26, 95%CI = 1.57-3.24) and cannabis legalization (aOR = 2.84, 95%CI = 1.78-4.51) correlated with noticing cannabis products. Regulatory efforts must be informed by ongoing surveillance of such policies and their impact.

SUBMITTER: Duan Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9690108 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

State T21, Restrictions on Flavored E-Cigarette Products, and Non-Medical Cannabis Sales Legalization in Relation to Young Adult Reports of Vape Shop Age Verification and Product Offerings: A Multilevel Analysis.

Duan Zongshuan Z Wang Yan Y Romm Katelyn F KF Henriksen Lisa L Schleicher Nina C NC Berg Carla J CJ

International journal of environmental research and public health 20221116 22

Vape shop practices related to age verification and product offerings (e.g., other tobacco, cannabis), which may affect young-adult tobacco/substance use, are likely impacted by state-level policies (i.e., Tobacco 21 [T21], flavored e-cigarette restrictions, non-medical cannabis legalization). Using data from young adults (18-34 years) in 6 US states representing variability in whether/when they implemented the aforementioned policies, this study focused on past 6-month e-cigarette users who vis ...[more]

PMID: 36429798

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDespite increases in e-cigarette sales restrictions, support for sales restrictions and perceived impact on young adult use are unclear.Aims and methodsWe analyzed February-May 2020 data from a longitudinal study of 2159 young adults (ages 18-34; Mage = 24.75 ± 4.71; n = 550 past 30-day e-cigarette users) in six metropolitan areas (Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego, and Seattle). We examined support for e-cigarette sales restrictions and-among e-cigarette users-perceived impact of flavored vape product and all vape product sales restrictions on e-cigarette and cigarette use (and potential correlates; ie, e-cigarette/tobacco use, use-related symptoms/health concerns).ResultsAbout 24.2% of e-cigarette users (and 57.6% of nonusers) supported (strongly/somewhat) sales restrictions on flavored vape products; 15.1% of e-cigarette users (45.1% of nonusers) supported complete vape product sales restrictions. If restricted to tobacco flavors, 39.1% of e-cigarette users reported being likely (very/somewhat) to continue using e-cigarettes (30.5% not at all likely); 33.2% were likely to switch to cigarettes (45.5% not at all). Considering complete vape product sales restrictions, equal numbers (~39%) were likely versus not at all likely to switch to cigarettes. Greater policy support correlated with being e-cigarette nonusers (adjusted R2 [aR2] = .210); among users, correlates included fewer days of use and greater symptoms and health concerns (aR2 = .393). If such restrictions were implemented, those less likely to report continuing to vape or switching to cigarettes used e-cigarettes on fewer days, were never smokers, and indicated greater health concern (aR2 = .361).ConclusionsWhile lower-risk users may be more positively impacted by such policies, other young adult user subgroups may not experience benefit.ImplicationsYoung adult e-cigarette users indicate low support for e-cigarette sales restrictions (both for flavored products and complete restrictions). Moreover, if vape product sales were restricted to tobacco flavors, 39.1% of users reported being likely to continue using e-cigarettes but 33.2% were likely to switch to cigarettes. If vape product sales were entirely restricted, e-cigarette users were equally likely to switch to cigarettes versus not (~40%). Those most likely to report positive impact of such policies being implemented were less frequent users, never smokers, and those with greater e-cigarette-related health concerns. This research should be considered in future tobacco control initiatives.

Project description:ImportanceMore than one-quarter of US residents live in states or localities that restrict sales of flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), often as a means to reduce youth vaping. Yet, how these policies affect young adult vaping and smoking remains unclear.ObjectiveTo estimate the effects of ENDS flavor restrictions on ENDS use and cigarette smoking among young adults (age 18-29 years) in the US.Design, participants, and settingThis quasi-experimental analysis used annual survey data from the 2016 to 2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a series of nationally- and state-representative, repeated cross-sectional surveys of noninstitutionalized civilian adults in the US. Two-way fixed-effects specifications were estimated to assess how ENDS flavor restrictions affect young adults' use of ENDS and cigarettes. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders including concurrent tobacco control policies, respondent demographic characteristics, and socioeconomic factors. Data analyses were conducted in November 2023 and repeated in October 2024 to incorporate newly released 2023 survey data.Main outcomes and measuresCurrent and daily use of ENDS and of cigarettes as measured in the BRFSS.ResultsBalanced panel analyses of 242 154 individuals aged 18 to 29 years consistently found that state ENDS flavor restrictions were associated with statistically significant reductions in daily vaping and increases in daily cigarette smoking. Estimates were similar across robustness checks, with the main specification showing 3.6 (95% CI, -5.0 to -2.1) percentage point (ppt) reductions in daily vaping and 2.2 ppt increases in daily cigarette smoking (95% CI, 1.0 to 3.4) relative to changes in states without restrictions. These estimates are equivalent to an 80% reduction in daily vaping and 22% increase in daily smoking compared with 2018 mean rates.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this quasi-experimental analysis of BRFSS survey data indicate that state restrictions on flavored ENDS sales were associated with reduced vaping among young adults but may have unintentionally increased cigarette smoking, potentially offsetting public health gains. These findings suggest that alleviating the burden of tobacco-related disease will require regulatory strategies that balance reducing vaping with preventing increases in more lethal, combustible tobacco use.

Project description:IntroductionFlavored tobacco sales restrictions (FTSRs) are implemented to reduce access to flavored tobacco products. We examined the association between seven cities with local FTSRs implemented in 2018/2019 and e-cigarette use among high school students in the California Bay Area.Aims and methodsWe analyzed data from the California Healthy Kids Survey using a difference-in-differences (D-I-D) strategy. We compared pre- and post-policy changes one year after implementation in current and ever e-cigarette use among students attending school in a city with a FTSR (exposed) (n = 20 832) versus without (unexposed) (n = 66 126). Other outcomes included ever marijuana use in an e-cigarette and ease of access to e-cigarettes.ResultsPre- to post-policy, the adjusted odds of current and ever e-cigarette use did not significantly change among students exposed and unexposed to a FTSR. In the adjusted D-I-D analysis, the odds of current (aOR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.65) and ever e-cigarette use (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.26) did not significantly change by exposure group. However, one year post-implementation, the odds of ease of access to e-cigarettes significantly increased among exposed (aOR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.27, 1.95) and unexposed students (aOR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.39, 1.70). Similarly, the odds of ever using marijuana in an e-cigarette significantly increased among exposed (aOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.19, 1.53) and unexposed students (aOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.20, 1.39).ConclusionsLocal FTSRs in the California Bay Area were not associated with a change in e-cigarette use one year post-implementation. Increased ease of access and marijuana use may be explanatory factors.ImplicationsFTSRs were not associated with a decrease in current or ever e-cigarette use among high school students in the California Bay Area one-year post-implementation. Potential explanatory factors are that ease of access to e-cigarettes and using marijuana in an e-cigarette increased. More research is needed to understand the influence of these factors on youth access and behaviors. To address the youth e-cigarette epidemic, a comprehensive approach is needed, including policies, media campaigns, education programs, and cessation tools targeted to youth.

Project description:Importancee-Cigarettes are the most commonly used tobacco product among US youths. Flavors are among the most cited reasons for use of e-cigarettes among youths, and therefore, some states have imposed restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales. To our knowledge, no study has compared e-cigarette sales between states with statewide flavored e-cigarette restrictions and states without such restrictions while controlling for co-occurring events.ObjectiveTo assess whether implementation of statewide restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington was associated with a reduction in total e-cigarette unit sales from 2014 to 2020.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study with difference-in-differences analysis used e-cigarette retail sales data from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Washington, which implemented restrictions on flavored e-cigarette sales in October 2019; New York, which implemented these restrictions in May 2020; and 35 states without these restrictions (control states). Sales were summed into 4-week periods from August 24, 2014, to December 27, 2020, for a total of 2988 state-period observations.Main outcomes and measuresA difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare e-cigarette unit sales in the 4 states with flavor restrictions (before and after implementation) with those in the 35 control states. The model controlled for other population-based policies and emergent events (eg, the COVID-19 pandemic). Data on 4-week e-cigarette unit sales were sorted into 4 flavor categories (tobacco, menthol, mint, and other). Unit sales were standardized to reflect the most common package sizes for each product type.ResultsStatewide restrictions on non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarette sales were associated with the following reductions in mean 4-week total e-cigarette sales in intervention states compared with control states from October 2019 to December 2020: 30.65% (95% CI, 24.08%-36.66%) in New York, 31.26% (95% CI, 11.94%-46.34%) in Rhode Island, and 25.01% (95% CI, 18.43%-31.05%) in Washington. In Massachusetts, the comprehensive sales prohibition of all e-cigarette products was associated with a 94.38% (95% CI, 93.37%-95.23%) reduction in 4-week sales compared with control states. Except in Massachusetts, where all sales of flavored e-cigarettes decreased, reductions were found only for non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarette sales in the other states with restrictions. Among control states, mean sales decreased by 28.4% from August 2019 to February 2020 but then increased by 49.9% from February through December 2020.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, statewide restrictions on the sale of flavored e-cigarettes in Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington were associated with a reduction in total e-cigarette sales. These findings suggest that not all e-cigarette users who purchased non-tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes switched to purchasing tobacco-flavored e-cigarettes after policy implementation.

Project description:IntroductionIn the United States, prominent sources of vaping products are specialty vape shops, which are subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation. This study interviewed vape shop owners/managers to assess: (1) reasons for entering into or engaging in vape shop retail; (2) personnel training, particularly with regard to FDA and state regulations; and (3) how existing regulations are perceived and the anticipated impact of future regulation.Aims and methodsThe current study involved phone-based semi-structured interviews of 45 vape shop owners/managers in six metropolitan statistical areas (Atlanta, Boston, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, San Diego, and Seattle) during Summer 2018 as FDA regulations regarding minimum age verification, bans on product sampling, and health warnings (among others) were first being implemented.ResultsVape shop owners/managers reported: (1) entering the industry with positive intentions for their customers, (2) training their personnel to adhere to regulations and provide good customer service, and (3) significant concerns about the impact of FDA regulations. With regard to the latter, participants reported mistrust of the intentions of the FDA regulations, financial implications of the regulations (particularly for small businesses), difficulty understanding and interpreting the regulations, insufficient evidence to support the regulations, negative impact on customer service, negative impact on product offerings and product innovation/advancement, and negative implications of flavor bans and/or restrictions on sale of flavors.ConclusionsThese findings indicate the complexities in implementing tobacco regulations, particularly from the perspective of the vape shop industry. Current findings should inform future regulatory actions and efforts to assess compliance with regulations.ImplicationsCurrent and impending FDA regulation of vaping products present a critical period for examining regulatory impact on the vape shop industry. Current results indicated that many vape shop owners/managers reporting positive intentions for engaging in the vaping product industry and in training vape shop personnel to adhere to regulations. However, the majority reported concerns about FDA regulation and other state/local regulations that could have negative implications for their industry. Particular concerns include difficulty understanding the regulations due to complexity, vagueness, and changes in language and/or interpretation over time. These issues have implications for compliance that must be addressed.

Project description:IntroductionEncouraging smokers to quit smoking tobacco using e-cigarettes could substantially reduce smoking-related diseases. Vape shops (VS) therefore have the potential to play an important role in supporting smoking cessation. The aim of this study was to explore how to deliver a vape shop-based smoking cessation intervention in the United Kingdom.MethodsSemistructured telephone interviews were undertaken with four stakeholder groups: 20 stop smoking service (SSS) providers, seven tobacco control leads, seven smokers/vapers, and five vape shop staff. Interviews were analyzed thematically.ResultsStakeholder groups were positive about the idea of delivering a vape shop-based intervention. Themes that were identified were the characteristics of the intervention (duration and timing; delivery; style and content; and product provisions); barriers to the intervention (challenges for new vapers; false information; tobacco company involvement; and conflicts of interest); facilitators to the intervention (positive views on vaping; cost-effectiveness; popularity; and accessibility); and considerations for the intervention (data protection and privacy; aesthetics; and regulation and management). The results suggest that the intervention should be delivered by vape shop workers with mandatory training with the support of SSS. Most stakeholders agreed quitting vaping was not a priority, but that information on how to reduce nicotine use should be given. Concerns around privacy, General Data Protection Regulation, misinformation about vaping, and tobacco company involvement would need to be addressed.ConclusionsStakeholders agree that VS should offer stop smoking interventions and hold similar opinions on how this should be delivered.ImplicationsThis study suggests that smokers, vapers, and other key stakeholders are positive about the idea of a stop-smoking vape shop-based intervention and that they hold similar opinions on how this should be delivered. Most participants felt that this should be primarily delivered by trained vape shop staff and run with support from SSS. Participants agreed that a stop-smoking vape shop-based intervention should be flexible in terms of the type, duration, and frequency of support provided, and that the intervention should comprise both technical guidance on using a vape and behavioral support to prevent a return to smoking.

Dataset Information

State T21, Restrictions on Flavored E-Cigarette Products, and Non-Medical Cannabis Sales Legalization in Relation to Young Adult Reports of Vape Shop Age Verification and Product Offerings: A Multilevel Analysis.

Publications

State T21, Restrictions on Flavored E-Cigarette Products, and Non-Medical Cannabis Sales Legalization in Relation to Young Adult Reports of Vape Shop Age Verification and Product Offerings: A Multilevel Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets