Identifying student opinion leaders to lead e-cigarette interventions: protocol for a randomized controlled pragmatic trial

Assessing the Pragmatic Effectiveness and Implementation of Click City: Tobacco: A School-Based Prevention Program Targeting Youth Cigarette and E-cigarette Use

INTRODUCTION

Given the rapid increase in the prevalence of e-cigarette use among youth, we updated Click City: Tobacco, an existing, efficacious, online tobacco prevention program for 5th graders with a 6th-grade booster, to also target e-cigarette use.

METHODS

To evaluate the effectiveness of the updated 5th-grade program within a "real world" setting, we conducted a pragmatic randomized trial with 5th-grade students in 43 schools across Arizona and Oregon, assessing change in intentions and willingness to use e-cigarettes/cigarettes, from baseline to one-week post-intervention. Students in intervention schools (n = 1327) received the updated version of Click City: Tobacco; students in control schools (n = 1346) received their usual tobacco prevention curriculum.

RESULTS

Students in intervention schools significantly decreased their intentions and willingness to use e-cigarettes and cigarettes, compared to students in control schools. The intervention also significantly changed all targeted etiological mechanisms predictive of intentions and willingness. The intervention was more effective for at-risk students, as defined by student's previous tobacco use, current family use of tobacco, and/or high in sensation-seeking. The effects of the intervention on all outcomes were similar as a function of state, gender, ethnicity, and historical timing (before COVID-19 pandemic school closures vs. after schools re-opened). Close to 90% of the students in the intervention condition completed the entire program, supporting fidelity of implementation, and teachers reported satisfaction with the program.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that Click City: Tobacco is effective for all 5th-grade students and can be delivered with fidelity across school settings.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of a randomized pragmatic effectiveness trial showed that the updated Click City: Tobacco program decreased intentions and willingness to both vape e-cigarettes and smoke cigarettes among 5th-grade students, particularly for those at high risk. Program effectiveness and lack of differences because of factors such as state, gender, ethnicity, and historical timing have universal implications, suggesting that all students can benefit from this program. Click City: Tobacco received high ratings of program satisfaction from teachers and was implemented with fidelity. Findings suggest that Click City: Tobacco is effective and can be easily implemented in schools.

Interventions to prevent or cease electronic cigarette use in children and adolescents

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of e-cigarette use has increased globally amongst children and adolescents in recent years. In response to the increasing prevalence and emerging evidence about the potential harms of e-cigarettes in children and adolescents, leading public health organisations have called for approaches to address increasing e-cigarette use. Whilst evaluations of approaches to reduce uptake and use regularly appear in the literature, the collective long-term benefit of these is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The co-primary objectives of the review were to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to prevent e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) with no prior use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention; and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to cease e-cigarette use in children and adolescents (aged 19 years and younger) reporting current use, relative to no intervention, waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention. Secondary objectives were to: (1) examine the effect of such interventions on child and adolescent use of other tobacco products (e.g. cigarettes, cigars types, and chewing tobacco); and (2) describe the unintended adverse effects of the intervention on individuals (e.g. physical or mental health of individuals), or on organisations (e.g. intervention displacement of key curricula or learning opportunities for school students) where such interventions are being implemented.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Clarivate Web of Science Core Collection from inception to 1 May 2023. Additionally, we searched two trial registry platforms (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov), Google Scholar, and the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We contacted corresponding authors of articles identified as ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-RCTs, factorial RCTs, and stepped-wedge RCTs. To be eligible, the primary targets of the interventions must have been children and adolescents aged 19 years or younger. Interventions could have been conducted in any setting, including community, school, health services, or the home, and must have sought to influence children or adolescent (or both) e-cigarette use directly. Studies with a comparator of no intervention (i.e. control), waitlist control, usual practice, or an alternative intervention not targeting e-cigarette use were eligible. We included measures to assess the effectiveness of interventions to: prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst those who were never-users); and cease e-cigarette use (including measures of e-cigarette use amongst children and adolescents who were e-cigarette current-users). Measures of e-cigarette use included current-use (defined as use in the past 30 days) and ever-use (defined as any lifetime use).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of references, with any discrepancies resolved through consensus. Pairs of review authors independently assessed the full-text articles for inclusion in the review. We planned for two review authors to independently extract information from the included studies and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We planned to conduct multiple meta-analyses using a random-effects model to align with the co-primary objectives of the review. First, we planned to pool interventions to prevent child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct two analyses using the outcome measures of 'ever-use' and 'current-use'. Second, we planned to pool interventions to cease child and adolescent e-cigarette use and conduct one analysis using the outcome measure of 'current-use'. Where data were unsuitable for pooling in meta-analyses, we planned to conduct a narrative synthesis using vote-counting approaches and to follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

The search of electronic databases identified 7141 citations, with a further 287 records identified from the search of trial registries and Google Scholar. Of the 110 studies (116 records) evaluated in full text, we considered 88 to be ineligible for inclusion for the following reasons: inappropriate outcome (27 studies); intervention (12 studies); study design (31 studies); and participants (18 studies). The remaining 22 studies (28 records) were identified as ongoing studies that may be eligible for inclusion in a future review update. We identified no studies with published data that were eligible for inclusion in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria for the review, and as such, there is no evidence available from RCTs to assess the potential impact of interventions targeting children and adolescent e-cigarette use, tobacco use, or any unintended adverse effects. Evidence from studies employing other trial designs (e.g. non-randomised) may exist; however, such studies were not eligible for inclusion in the review. Evidence from studies using non-randomised designs should be examined to guide actions to prevent or cease e-cigarette use. This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every month and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Mutual pathways between peer and own e-cigarette use among youth in the United States: a cross-lagged model

BACKGROUND

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have become the most common tobacco product used among adolescents in the United States (US). Prior research has shown that peer e-cigarette use was associated with increased risk of own e-cigarette use. Nonetheless, there is little empirical evidence on the directionality of these associations-if peer use predicts own use (peer influence) or if own use predicts peer use (peer selection).

METHODS

We estimated the association between peer and own e-cigarette use among US adolescents 12-17 years of age. We used the cross-lagged model to investigate the mutual relationship between peer and own e-cigarette use over time using data from a population-based longitudinal study, Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health. Stratified analyses were conducted by sex and age subgroups.

RESULTS

Results from a cross-lagged model showed a statistically significant predicting path leading from peer use at the prior time point to own use at the following time point, but not vice versa.

CONCLUSIONS

We found strong relationships between peer e-cigarette use and own e-cigarette use at within-individual levels. Peer influence paths were more robust than peer selection paths for e-cigarette use. Incorporating peers into prevention and intervention programs may help enhance these strategies.

Interventions to mitigate vaping misinformation: protocol for a scoping review

BACKGROUND

The impact of misinformation about vapes' relative harms compared with smoking may lead to increased tobacco-related burden of disease. To date, no systematic efforts have been made to chart interventions that mitigate vaping-related misinformation. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill gaps in the current knowledge of interventions that mitigate vaping-related misinformation.

METHODS

A scoping review focusing on interventions that mitigate vaping-related misinformation will be conducted. We will search (no date restrictions) MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Global Health, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. Gray literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, Open Science Framework, governmental websites, and preprint servers (e.g., EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods. Where possible, a single effect size of exposure to the mitigation of vaping-related misinformation will be calculated per sample. Similarly, where possible, each study will be coded for moderating characteristics to find and account for systematic differences in the size of the effect or outcome that is being analyzed. Quality will be appraised with the study quality assessment tools utilized by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Findings will be subjected to several different publication bias tests: Egger's regression test, Begg and Mazumdar's ran correlation test, and generation of a funnel plot with effect sizes plotted against a corresponding standard error.

DISCUSSION

Original research is urgently needed to design interventions to mitigate vaping-related misinformation. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework osf/io/hy3tk.

E-cigarette Use Among Young Adult Patients: The Opportunity to Intervene on Risky Lifestyle Behaviors to Reduce Cancer Risk

Use of e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) is on the rise. We administered a health needs survey via email to 804 adult primary care and oncology patients at a large urban academic medical center in 2019. We examined differences in e-cigarette use by smoking status, personal history of cancer, alcohol use, and second-hand tobacco smoke exposure. Of the 804 participants, 90 (11.2%) reported ever using e-cigarettes. E-cigarette use was more prevalent in young adults (risk ratio [RR] for 18-24 years: 4.58, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 2.05, 10.26), current smoking (RR 4.64, 95% CI 1.94, 11.07), very often/often binge drinking (RR 3.04, 96% CI 1.38, 6.73), and ≥ 1 smokers in the home (RR 3.90, 95% CI 2.10, 7.23). Binge alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking are associated with increased risk cancer. Inquiries about e-cigarette use among adults 25-40 years present providers the opportunity to also counsel young adult about reducing cancer risk.

Interventions to Mitigate Vaping Misinformation: A Meta-Analysis

The impact of misinformation about vapes' relative harms compared with smoking may lead to increased tobacco-related burden of disease and youth vaping. Unfortunately, vaping misinformation has proliferated. Despite growing attempts to mitigate vaping misinformation, there is still considerable ambiguity regarding the ability to effectively curb the negative impact of misinformation. To address this gap, we use a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative impact of interventions designed to mitigate vaping-related misinformation. We searched (from January 2020 till August 2021) various databases and gray literature. Only English language, original studies that employed experimental designs where participants were randomly assigned either to receive mitigating information or to a no-mitigation condition (either misinformation-only or neutral control) were included. Meta-analysis was conducted for the four eligible studies. The mean effect size of attempts to mitigate vaping misinformation was positive but not statistically significant (d = 0.383, 95% CI [-0.029, 0.796], p = .061, k = 5) with lack of evidence for publication bias. Given limited studies included, we were unable to determine factors affecting the efficacy of interventions. The limited focus on non-US studies and youth populations is concerning given the popularity of vaping in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) and among youth. The findings of this meta-analysis describe the current state of the literature and prescribe specific recommendations to better address the proliferation of vaping misinformation, providing insights helpful in limiting the tobacco mortality burden and curtailing youth vaping.