Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Youth - What Risks Are They Taking?: Mendelsohn CP, Hall W.study added) |
Richardpruen (talk | contribs) (→Youth and Regulations / Preventing Youth Use: added study on flavour availability and possible changes in intention to use, showing little difference. According to this study flavour bans do not deter youth use and may be counterproductive) |
||
| Line 238: | Line 238: | ||
=Youth and Regulations / Preventing Youth Use= <!--T:56--> | =Youth and Regulations / Preventing Youth Use= <!--T:56--> | ||
=== 2023: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37364525/ An experimental evaluation of the effects of banning the sale of flavored tobacco products on adolescents' and young adults' future nicotine vaping intentions.] === | |||
* Dunbar M, Setoji CM, Martino SC, Jensen D, Li R, Bialas A, Shadel WG. Addict Behav. 2023 Jun 19;145:107784. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107784. Online ahead of print. PMID: 37364525 | |||
* An experimental purchasing study of youth (11-20 years old) in a mock convenience store, examining different conditions with different flavor availabilities: | |||
** ''Methods: The display of flavored tobacco products in the store was manipulated with these conditions: 1) tobacco, sweet, and menthol/mint flavors displayed; 2) only tobacco and menthol/mint displayed; and 3) only tobacco flavors displayed.co flavors displayed.'' | |||
** Results: Study condition was not associated with intentions to use menthol/mint- sweet-flavored, or any flavor. Compared to the condition in which all flavored products were displayed, removing menthol/mint- and sweet-flavored products significantly increased future intentions to use tobacco-flavored vaping products (OR = 3.97, 95 % CI [1.01, 15.58], p < .05). This effect was only observed among adolescents with history of vaping (OR = 11.30, 95 % CI [1.42, 89.96], p = .02). | |||
* The assumption behind flavor bans is that flavor availability will causally deter use among youth (especially non-using youth), which stems from the unproven assumption that because youth often use flavors, that flavors caused youth use. However, there is no evidence for this causation – youth might otherwise use tobacco flavor, as evidenced by youth using no-added-flavors cigarettes for decades previously. This is one of the first studies that evaluates the causality of flavor availability on youth use (another one was a Pinney paper finding that youth interest did not vary across flavor descriptors). | |||
* The results are notable in their lack of causal associations, except in increasing the intention to use tobacco-flavored products among youth who already use e-cigarettes if there are no flavors available (i.e., migrating to the remaining available products). Especially notable is that flavor restrictions did not change intentions to use among non-users (which were already low), which calls into question the fundamental motivation behind flavor bans. | |||
* I would be nice to have seen the overall levels of intentions to use in each condition to evaluate the magnitude of the effects (for those results, only adjusted odds ratios are presented) | |||
===2021: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538068.2020.1860671 Content analysis of the use of fear in the real cost youth e-cigarette prevention campaign]=== <!--T:57--> | ===2021: [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538068.2020.1860671 Content analysis of the use of fear in the real cost youth e-cigarette prevention campaign]=== <!--T:57--> | ||
edits