IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i11p6468-d824691.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining the Survey Setting Effect on Current E-Cigarette Use Estimates among High School Students in the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Chen-Sankey

    (Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
    School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

  • Michelle T. Bover Manderski

    (Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
    School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

  • William J. Young

    (Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
    School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

  • Cristine D. Delnevo

    (Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA
    School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA)

Abstract

The 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) was completed by youth online during class time, either in school or at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the role of NYTS data in tobacco regulatory science, it is vital to understand the effect of survey settings (home, school) on tobacco-use estimates. We used a series of multivariable logistic regressions to examine whether survey settings (home vs. school) predicted current e-cigarette use among high school students, controlling for other known predictors of e-cigarette use as well as the pandemic learning model that was dominant in students’ counties (e.g., nearly all at-home, majority in school). We observed a significant survey setting effect. Those who completed the survey in school had higher odds of current e-cigarette use than those who completed the same survey at home (AOR = 1.74); this effect was attenuated when we controlled for the pandemic learning model (AOR = 1.38). Moreover, e-cigarette use was independently associated with students’ learning model; students whose schools were nearly entirely in-person had the highest odds of e-cigarette use compared to students whose learning model was nearly all at-home (AOR = 1.65). Survey setting is a methodological artifact in the 2021 NYTS. Perceived privacy and peer effects can potentially explain this artifact.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Chen-Sankey & Michelle T. Bover Manderski & William J. Young & Cristine D. Delnevo, 2022. "Examining the Survey Setting Effect on Current E-Cigarette Use Estimates among High School Students in the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-9, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6468-:d:824691
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6468/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/11/6468/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Blackwell & Stefano Iacus & Gary King & Giuseppe Porro, 2009. "cem: Coarsened exact matching in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 9(4), pages 524-546, December.
    2. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    3. Iacus, Stefano & King, Gary & Porro, Giuseppe, 2009. "cem: Software for Coarsened Exact Matching," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 30(i09).
    4. King, Gary & Nielsen, Richard, 2019. "Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(4), pages 435-454, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kaitlyn M. Mazzilli & Michelle T. Bover Manderski & Cristine D. Delnevo & Mary Hrywna, 2022. "A Pilot Feasibility Study of an Online Youth Tobacco Survey Administration among High School Students," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-8, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Magambo, Isaiah & Dikgang, Johane & Gelo, Dambala & Tregenna, Fiona, 2021. "Gold-Mining Pollution Exposure, Health Effects and Private Healthcare Expenditure in Tanzania," MPRA Paper 108800, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Philipp vom Berge & Achim Schmillen, 2023. "Effects of mass layoffs on local employment—evidence from geo-referenced data," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 509-539.
    3. repec:zbw:rwirep:0170 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Srinivasa, Aditya Korekallu & Praveen, K.V. & Subash, S.P. & Nithyashree, ML & Jha, Girish Kumar, 2021. "Does a Farmer’s Knowledge of Minimum Support Price (MSP) Affect the Farm-Gate Price? Evidence from India," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315205, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Ravi Bapna & Alok Gupta & Gautam Ray & Shweta Singh, 2023. "Single-Sourcing vs. Multisourcing: An Empirical Analysis of Large Information Technology Outsourcing Arrangements," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1109-1130, September.
    6. Maria Abreu & Özge Öner, 2020. "Disentangling the Brexit vote: The role of economic, social and cultural contexts in explaining the UK’s EU referendum vote," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(7), pages 1434-1456, October.
    7. Ginther, Donna K. & Heggeness, Misty L., 2020. "Administrative discretion in scientific funding: Evidence from a prestigious postdoctoral training program✰," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    8. Ubaldi, Michele & Picchio, Matteo, 2023. "Intergenerational scars: The impact of parental unemployment on individual health later in life," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1271, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    9. Bjorvatn, Afsaneh, 2018. "Private or public hospital ownership: Does it really matter?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 166-174.
    10. Veronika Hedija, 2014. "Do Women Really Face Wage Discrimination on the Labour Market? An Analysis Using Intra-household Specialization," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 62(6), pages 1279-1286.
    11. Jaehyun Ahn & Gary Briers & Mathew Baker & Edwin Price & Robert Strong & Manuel Piña & Alexis Zickafoose & Peng Lu, 2022. "Radio Communications on Family Planning: Case of West Africa," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-10, April.
    12. Ainhoa Herrarte & Paloma Urcelay, 2022. "The Wage Penalty for Motherhood in Spain (2009-2017): The Role of the Male Partner’s Job Characteristic," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 241(2), pages 27-57, June.
    13. Isabelle Solal & Kaisa Snellman, 2019. "Women Don’t Mean Business? Gender Penalty in Board Composition," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1270-1288, November.
    14. Ravi Bapna & Alok Gupta & Gautam Ray & Shweta Singh, 2016. "Research Note —IT Outsourcing and the Impact of Advisors on Clients and Vendors," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 636-647.
    15. Mehmet Ugur & Eshref Trushin, 2023. "Information asymmetry, risk aversion and R&D subsidies: effect-size heterogeneity and policy conundrums," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(8), pages 1190-1215, November.
    16. Yuri Ostrovsky & Garnett Picot, 2021. "Innovation in immigrant-owned firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1857-1874, December.
    17. Pramendra Singh Tank, 2023. "Unlocking the Power of Accelerators: The Crucial Role of Institutions in Boosting New Venture Performance," IIMA Working Papers WP 2023-04-04, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    18. Dionne, Kim Yi & Horowitz, Jeremy, 2016. "The Political Effects of Agricultural Subsidies in Africa: Evidence from Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 215-226.
    19. Rana, Pushpendra & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2016. "Rules and Exceptions: Regulatory Challenges to Private Tree Felling in Northern India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 143-153.
    20. Miaoqing Yang & Eugenio Zucchelli, 2018. "The impact of public smoking bans on well‐being externalities: Evidence from a policy experiment," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 65(3), pages 224-247, July.
    21. Engberg, Erik & Halvarsson, Daniel & Tingvall, Patrik, 2017. "Direct and Indirect Effects of Private- and Government Sponsored Venture Capital," Ratio Working Papers 288, The Ratio Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:11:p:6468-:d:824691. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.