Perceptions of Nicotine Vaping Prevention and Cessation Resources by Youth-Serving Professionals, Parents, and Adolescents
Poster #: 165
Session/Time: B
Author:
Lillian Magdalene Needam, MS
Mentor:
Paul Harrell, PhD
Research Type: Public Health
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:
Despite recognizing of the dangers of youth tobacco use, most youth-serving professionals and parents report a lack of confidence in addressing e-cigarette prevention and cessation. Various resources are available but are not implemented widely. More work is needed to understand why.
METHODS:
Responders were presented with 6 vignettes featuring students varying by risk level (non-user, experimenter, regular user) paired with 2 resources per risk level. The vignettes were developed as part of a multi-stage feedback process with youth-serving professionals. Resources were evaluated based on 3 implementation science stakeholder factors: acceptability (the resource is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory), appropriateness (perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of resource for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer), and feasibility (can be successfully used or carried out within a given setting). Respondents rated the factors on a scale from strongly disagree ('1') to strongly agree ('5'). The survey was distributed to adolescents, parents, and professionals across Virginia.
RESULTS:
We collected responses from 60 adolescents (ages 12-17), 98 parents, and 60 professionals. Parents and professionals both felt the Virginia Department of Health Live Vape Free support and text messaging program was more feasible (M = 4.00, SD = 1.01; M = 4.19, SD = 0.59) for experimenting youth than the American Lung Association's INDEPTH alternative to suspension program involving in-person visits (M = 3.77, SD = 0.84; M = 3.98, SD = 0.59), both p < .05, Cohen's d > .22. Adolescents perceived Live Vape Free to be more appropriate than INDEPTH, p < .05, d =.29. They also indicated that the Truth Initiative's This is Quitting text messaging program was significantly more acceptable, p < .05, d = .29, and appropriate, p < .05, d = .31, than a local addiction counseling program. When respondents were asked about what is needed to help students avoid vaping, over half of the professionals and adolescents mentioned more education was needed. Other themes mentioned included support from others and skills to resist vaping.
CONCLUSION:
Parents and professionals have concerns regarding the feasibility of interventions for youth involving in-person visits, favoring mobile interventions instead. Adolescents similarly have concerns regarding acceptability and appropriateness of face-to-face interventions. Addressing these factors can enhance real-world implementation and success.
Despite recognizing of the dangers of youth tobacco use, most youth-serving professionals and parents report a lack of confidence in addressing e-cigarette prevention and cessation. Various resources are available but are not implemented widely. More work is needed to understand why.
METHODS:
Responders were presented with 6 vignettes featuring students varying by risk level (non-user, experimenter, regular user) paired with 2 resources per risk level. The vignettes were developed as part of a multi-stage feedback process with youth-serving professionals. Resources were evaluated based on 3 implementation science stakeholder factors: acceptability (the resource is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory), appropriateness (perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of resource for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer), and feasibility (can be successfully used or carried out within a given setting). Respondents rated the factors on a scale from strongly disagree ('1') to strongly agree ('5'). The survey was distributed to adolescents, parents, and professionals across Virginia.
RESULTS:
We collected responses from 60 adolescents (ages 12-17), 98 parents, and 60 professionals. Parents and professionals both felt the Virginia Department of Health Live Vape Free support and text messaging program was more feasible (M = 4.00, SD = 1.01; M = 4.19, SD = 0.59) for experimenting youth than the American Lung Association's INDEPTH alternative to suspension program involving in-person visits (M = 3.77, SD = 0.84; M = 3.98, SD = 0.59), both p < .05, Cohen's d > .22. Adolescents perceived Live Vape Free to be more appropriate than INDEPTH, p < .05, d =.29. They also indicated that the Truth Initiative's This is Quitting text messaging program was significantly more acceptable, p < .05, d = .29, and appropriate, p < .05, d = .31, than a local addiction counseling program. When respondents were asked about what is needed to help students avoid vaping, over half of the professionals and adolescents mentioned more education was needed. Other themes mentioned included support from others and skills to resist vaping.
CONCLUSION:
Parents and professionals have concerns regarding the feasibility of interventions for youth involving in-person visits, favoring mobile interventions instead. Adolescents similarly have concerns regarding acceptability and appropriateness of face-to-face interventions. Addressing these factors can enhance real-world implementation and success.