Yazidjoglou Amelia, Watts Christina, Joshy Grace, Egger Sam, Banks Emily, Freeman Becky
Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
The Daffodil Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Public Health. 2025 Sep 4;3(2):e002414. doi: 10.1136/bmjph-2024-002414. eCollection 2025.
Curbing adolescent vaping is a public health priority and little evidence exists examining protective factors. Using a strength-based approach, this study explored the relationship between adolescent vaping health perceptions and vaping use.
Cross-sectional data from 9000 Australian adolescents aged 14-17 years recruited via multiple online panels as part of the Generation Vape Study were used. Logistic regression compared never vs ever vaping, and inversed multinomial logistic regression compared never vaping to four lifetime vaping categories (ranging from use on a few to >100 occasions) for eight health perceptions.
Overall, 66% (5948/9000) of participants reported never vaping. Within all vaping categories, most agreed that vapes are unsafe, can harm the lungs and brain and can cause addiction, and disagreed that nicotine is harmless. Compared with those who disagreed/strongly disagreed, the odds of never vs ever vaping were greater among those who agreed/strongly agreed that vapes are unsafe to use (adjusted OR=2.67; 95% CI 2.17 to 3.27), can harm the developing brain (2.61; 2.05 to 3.33), can damage the lungs (1.61; 1.23 to 2.10), can cause addiction (2.32; 1.79 to 3.00) and that they are unsafe to use around others (2.94; 2.48 to 3.49). Compared with those who agreed/strongly agreed that nicotine is harmless, there were greater odds of never use (vs ever use) among those who disagreed/strongly disagreed (1.75; 1.44 to 2.11). The protective relationship remained across different lifetime vaping categories. Neither agreeing nor disagreeing was not generally a factor protective against vaping.
Perceptions of vape harms appear protective against experimental and regular vaping. Young people vape despite the majority of users being aware of harms, suggesting knowledge alone is an unlikely driver of behaviour. Comprehensive control efforts that embrace a suite of actions including education, policy, enforcement and monitoring activities are needed to best protect adolescent health.
遏制青少年吸电子烟是一项公共卫生重点工作，而关于保护因素的研究证据很少。本研究采用基于优势的方法，探讨青少年对吸电子烟健康认知与吸电子烟行为之间的关系。
使用了从多个在线样本招募的9000名14至17岁澳大利亚青少年的横断面数据，这些数据是“电子烟一代研究”的一部分。逻辑回归比较从不吸电子烟与曾经吸电子烟的情况，反向多项逻辑回归比较从不吸电子烟与四个终生吸电子烟类别（从偶尔使用到超过100次使用）在八种健康认知方面的情况。
总体而言，66%（5948/9000）的参与者报告从不吸电子烟。在所有吸电子烟类别中，大多数人都认为电子烟不安全，会损害肺部和大脑并会导致成瘾，并且不同意尼古丁无害的观点。与那些不同意/强烈不同意的人相比，那些同意/强烈同意电子烟使用不安全（调整后的比值比=2.67；95%置信区间2.17至3.27）、会损害发育中的大脑（2.61；2.05至3.33）、会损害肺部（1.61；1.23至2.10）、会导致成瘾（2.32；1.79至3.00）以及在他人周围使用不安全（2.94；2.48至3.49）的人从不吸电子烟与曾经吸电子烟的比值比更高。与那些同意/强烈同意尼古丁无害的人相比，那些不同意/强烈不同意的人从不使用（与曾经使用相比）的比值比更高（1.75；1.44至2.11）。这种保护关系在不同的终生吸电子烟类别中都存在。既不同意也不反对通常不是防止吸电子烟的保护因素。
对电子烟危害的认知似乎对尝试吸电子烟和经常吸电子烟有保护作用。尽管大多数使用者都意识到危害，但年轻人仍吸电子烟，这表明仅靠知识不太可能成为行为的驱动因素。需要采取包括教育、政策、执法和监测活动在内的一系列综合控制措施，以最好地保护青少年健康。
