IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i13p2329-d244877.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Examination of Device Types and Features Used by Adult Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Users in the PATH Study, 2015–2016

Author

Listed:
  • Blair Coleman

    (Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA)

  • Joanne T. Chang

    (Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA)

  • Brian L. Rostron

    (Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA)

  • Sarah E. Johnson

    (Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA)

  • Babita Das

    (Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA)

  • Arseima Y. Del Valle-Pinero

    (Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Beltsville, MD 20705, USA)

Abstract

To date no study has reported U.S. nationally representative estimates of current ENDS users by device category (“open” vs. “closed” systems) nor their detailed use behaviors. We examined the proportion of current adult ENDS users (unweighted n = 2671) using either “closed” or “open” systems during Wave 3 (2015–2016) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. Demographic characteristics, use patterns, and device characteristics were examined overall and by device type. Among the 5.0% of current users at Wave 3, 43.9% used closed systems and 53.7% used open systems. Compared to closed system users, open system users were more likely to be male (60.7% vs. 48.4%), aged 18–24 (30.4% vs. 21.4%), and non-Hispanic White (76.2% vs. 65.4%), recent former (9.9% vs. 5.6%) or long-term former (20.2% vs. 10.9%) smokers, and use ENDS daily (44.1% vs. 22.5%); they were less likely to be to be current daily smokers (31.7% vs. 48.0%) or never smokers (15.2% vs. 19.5%). Adult ENDS users were nearly evenly split on their use of closed versus open systems; however, several group differences were observed. Disentangling the relationship between device selection and subsequent use patterns remains a public health priority.

Suggested Citation

  • Blair Coleman & Joanne T. Chang & Brian L. Rostron & Sarah E. Johnson & Babita Das & Arseima Y. Del Valle-Pinero, 2019. "An Examination of Device Types and Features Used by Adult Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Users in the PATH Study, 2015–2016," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-6, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:13:p:2329-:d:244877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2329/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/13/2329/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lisa D. Gardner & Sherry T. Liu & Haijun Xiao & Gabriella M. Anic & Karin A. Kasza & Eva Sharma & Andrew J. Hyland, 2022. "Electronic Nicotine Delivery System (ENDS) Device Types and Flavors Used by Youth in the PATH Study, 2016–2019," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-10, April.
    2. Karin A. Kasza & Maciej L. Goniewicz & Kathryn C. Edwards & Michael D. Sawdey & Marushka L. Silveira & Shannon Gravely & Izabella Zandberg & Lisa D. Gardner & Geoffrey T. Fong & Andrew Hyland, 2021. "E-Cigarette Flavors and Frequency of E-Cigarette Use among Adult Dual Users Who Attempt to Quit Cigarette Smoking in the United States: Longitudinal Findings from the PATH Study 2015/16–2016/17," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-10, April.

    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:16:y:2019:i:13:p:2329-:d:244877. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.