Article: Why Are National Estimates So Different? A Comparison of Youth E-Cigarette Use and Cigarette Smoking in the MTF and PATH Surveys

Objective: We compared estimates of adolescents' nicotine product use and perceptions of harm from two national surveys: Monitoring the Future (MTF) and Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH). We explored one explanation for the different estimates for nicotine product use and adolescents' perceptions of harm.

Method: We used data source triangulation examining 30-day e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, beliefs about harm, and friends' use of these products in two samples of adolescents from the 2015-2016 MTF and PATH samples.

Results: Differences were found, with MTF reporting higher prevalence rates in both past-30-day e-cigarette use (12.4% vs. 6.7%) and cigarette smoking (8.6% vs. 5.1%) when compared with PATH. Differences were significant at the .001 alpha level. MTF respondents were less likely than PATH respondents to view both e-cigarettes (17.7% vs. 48.6%) and cigarettes (75.6% vs. 82.4%) as harmful. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) shows that PATH respondents had significantly lower odds of indicating either e-cigarette (OR = 0.509, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.400, 0.648]) or cigarette smoking (OR = 0.571, 95% CI [0.433, 0.753]) when compared with MTF respondents. However, these differences in e-cigarette use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.849, 95% CI [0.630, 1.144]) and cigarette smoking (AOR = 0.829, 95% CI = [0.578, 1.189]) were mediated when additional predictors were included in the model (i.e., friends use, risk of harm).

Conclusions: Substantial differences were found between national surveys estimating population rates of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. Data source triangulation allowed for new explanations for several of the disparate nicotine use estimates between MTF and PATH.

Citing Articles

Association between tobacco product use and respiratory health and asthma-related interference with activities among U.S. Adolescents.

Yao T, Watkins S, Sung H, Wang Y, Gu D, Lyu J Prev Med Rep. 2024; 41():102712.

PMID: 38586468 PMC: 10995971. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102712.

Trajectories of body mass index and combustible and electronic cigarette use across adolescence: Findings from the PATH study.

Lee D, Tackett A, Naya C, Harlow A, Mason T Addict Behav. 2023; 149:107901.

PMID: 37925843 PMC: 10765952. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107901.

The role of flavored electronic nicotine delivery systems in smoking cessation: A systematic review.

Liber A, Knoll M, Cadham C, Issabakhsh M, Oh H, Cook S Drug Alcohol Depend Rep. 2023; 7:100143.

PMID: 37012981 PMC: 10066538. DOI: 10.1016/j.dadr.2023.100143.

Impact of Survey Setting on Current Tobacco Product Use: National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2021.

Park-Lee E, Gentzke A, Ren C, Cooper M, Sawdey M, Hu S J Adolesc Health. 2022; 72(3):365-374.

PMID: 36470692 PMC: 11036859. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2022.10.012.

Consumption of JUUL vs. Other E-Cigarette Brands among U.S. E-Cigarette Users: Evidence from Wave 5 of the PATH Study.

Wang Y, Duan Z, Weaver S, Popova L, Spears C, Ashley D Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(17).

PMID: 36078551 PMC: 9518567. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710837.

References

1.

Flay B, Hu F, Siddiqui O, Day L, Hedeker D, Petraitis J . Differential influence of parental smoking and friends' smoking on adolescent initiation and escalation of smoking. J Health Soc Behav. 1994; 35(3):248-65. View

2.

Vereecken C, Maes L . Comparison of a computer-administered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors. J Adolesc Health. 2006; 38(4):426-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.010. View

3.

Miech R, Johnston L, OMalley P, Terry-McElrath Y . The national prevalence of adolescent nicotine use in 2017: Estimates taking into account student reports of substances vaped. Addict Behav Rep. 2019; 9:100159. PMC: 6542751. DOI: 10.1016/j.abrep.2019.100159. View

4.

Conrad K, Flay B, Hill D . Why children start smoking cigarettes: predictors of onset. Br J Addict. 1992; 87(12):1711-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb02684.x. View

5.

Hyland A, Ambrose B, Conway K, Borek N, Lambert E, Carusi C . Design and methods of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Tob Control. 2016; 26(4):371-378. PMC: 5299069. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-052934. View

6.

Eaton D, Brener N, Kann L, Denniston M, McManus T, Kyle T . Comparison of paper-and-pencil versus Web administration of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS): risk behavior prevalence estimates. Eval Rev. 2010; 34(2):137-53. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X10362491. View

7.

Harakeh Z, Scholte R, Vermulst A, de Vries H, Engels R . Parental factors and adolescents' smoking behavior: an extension of The theory of planned behavior. Prev Med. 2004; 39(5):951-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.03.036. View

8.

Singh T, Kennedy S, Marynak K, Persoskie A, Melstrom P, King B . Characteristics of Electronic Cigarette Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016; 65(50-51):1425-1429. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm655051a2. View

9.

Jamal A, Gentzke A, Hu S, Cullen K, Apelberg B, Homa D . Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students - United States, 2011-2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017; 66(23):597-603. PMC: 5657845. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6623a1. View

10.

Wyrick D, Bond L . Reducing sensitive survey response bias in research on adolescents: a comparison of web-based and paper-and-pencil administration. Am J Health Promot. 2011; 25(5):349-52. DOI: 10.4278/ajhp.080611-ARB-90. View

11.

Gnambs T, Kaspar K . Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2014; 47(4):1237-1259. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4. View