You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 33, Issue 4
  • E-cigarette use among early adolescent tobacco cigarette smokers: testing the disruption and entrenchment hypotheses in two longitudinal cohorts

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
E-cigarette use among early adolescent tobacco cigarette smokers: testing the disruption and entrenchment hypotheses in two longitudinal cohorts
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 20 June 2024
    Response -- Rodu inquiry
    • Jeremy Staff, Professor Pennsylvania State University
    • Other Contributors:
      • Brian Kelly, Professor
      • Mike Vuolo, Professor
      • Jennifer Maggs, Professor

    NOT PEER REVIEWED

    Regarding the first two questions, the analyses were based on the public use data from both the PATH Study and the MCS, with links to their archives, and the PATH study sample was drawn from the original cohort, the replenishment cohort, and the shadow cohorts (see 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Methods Section). Regarding the remaining questions, please note that our stated goal was to make the MCS and PATH analytical samples as comparable as possible when testing our hypotheses using both cohorts (3rd paragraph of Methods section). As we note in the limitations section (5th paragraph of Discussion section), the MCS had relatively limited items on e-cigarette use and tobacco smoking compared to PATH. The MCS did not assess other combustible tobacco product consumption in early adolescence, nor did MCS measure the sequencing of early adolescent tobacco and e-cigarette use (noted in the limitation section). Also, MCS youth answered survey questions about ever using e-cigarettes from 2015 to 2016 (3rd paragraph of Methods section), which gave us limited variability to test for a wave x e-cigarette interaction in both datasets.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 20 June 2024
    Methods questions
    • Brad Rodu, Professor University of Louisville

    NOT PEER REVIEWED

    I respectfully request answers to the following questions:

    1. Was public use or restricted PATH data used. This is important, since Table 2 contains a cell, n=7, that is not generally approved by NAHDAP.

    2. Was the PATH cohort drawn from Waves 1 and 4, with follow-ups to age 17 years as needed from the other waves?

    3. There were significant differences in youth smoking-vaping between Wave 1 (2013-14) and Wave 4 (2016-18) that might have affected the results. Was each wave analyzed separately as well as together?

    4. The analysis included a variable relating to “parent(s) smoking of cigarettes, cigars, or pipes.” Did the analysis include other combustible tobacco product consumption by the subjects themselves?

    5. Did the authors account for age at first smoking or vaping (public use, < 12 years and 12-14 years) or which product(s) had been used first?

    Conflict of Interest:
    The author's research is supported by unrestricted grants from tobacco manufacturers to the University of Louisville, and by the Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund.