U.S. adolescent and adult women\u27s experiences accessing and using toilets in schools, workplaces, and public spaces: A multi-site focus group study to inform future research in bladder health

The World Health Organization recognizes access to clean and safe toilets as crucial for public health. This study explored U.S. adolescent and adult cisgender women\u27s lived experiences accessing toilets in schools, workplaces, and public spaces. As part of the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (PLUS) Research Consortium, we conducted 44 focus groups with female participants (n = 360; ages 11-93). Focus groups were stratified by age (11-14, 15-17, 18-25, 26-44, 45-64, 65+) and conducted across 7 geographically diverse U.S. sites from July 2017-April 2018. Using a transdisciplinary approach, we conducted conventional qualitative coding informed by our PLUS conceptual framework and used content analysis processes to identify salient themes. Across settings, toilet access was restricted by gatekeepers (i.e., individuals who control access to toilets). In contrast, self-restricting toilet use (deciding not to use the toilet despite biologic need to urinate) was based on internalized norms to prioritize school and job responsibilities over urination. In public spaces, self-restricting use was largely in response to lack of cleanliness. Across the life course, participants perceived gender disparities in the ability to easily access public toilets. Further research is needed to determine if and how these factors impact bladder health across the life course

Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Research Consortium focus group Study of Habits, Attitudes, Realities, and Experiences of Bladder health

AimThe study purpose is to explore adolescent and adult women’s experiences, perceptions, beliefs, knowledge and behaviours related to bladder health across the life course using a socioecological perspective. Lower urinary tract symptoms affect between 20-40% of young adult to middle-aged women, with symptoms increasing in incidence and severity with aging. There is limited evidence to address bladder health promotion and prevention of dysfunction. This first study of the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (PLUS) Research Consortium is designed to address gaps in existing qualitative research in this area.DesignThis focus group study will be implemented across seven geographically diverse United States research centres using a semi-structured focus group guide informed by a conceptual framework based on the socioecological model.MethodsThe study was approved in July 2017. A total of 44 focus groups composed of 6-8 participants representing six different age categories (ranging from 11 to over 65 years) will be completed. We aim to recruit participants with diverse demographic and personal characteristics including race, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, urban/rural residence, physical/health conditions, and urinary symptom experience. Six of the focus groups will be conducted in Spanish and translated into English. Focus group transcripts will undergo content analysis and data interpretation to identify and classify themes and articulate emerging themes.DiscussionThis foundational qualitative study seeks to develop an evidence base to inform future research on bladder health promotion in adolescent and adult women.ImpactThis study has the potential to provide new insights and understanding into adolescent and adult women’s lived experience of bladder health, the experience of lower urinary symptoms and knowledge and beliefs across the life course.ç ®ç æ ¬ç  ç©¶ç ç ®ç æ ¯ä» ç¤¾ä¼ ç æ å­¦ç è§ åº¦,æ ¢è®¨é å° å¹´å æ å¹´å¥³æ §å ¨äººç è¿ ç¨ ä¸­ä¸ è è ±å ¥åº·ç ¸å ³ç ç» éª ã è§ å¿µã 信念ã ç ¥è¯ å è¡ ä¸ºã ä¸ å°¿è·¯ç ç ¶å½±å 20-40%ç 中é å¹´å¥³æ §,é ç å¹´é¾ ç å¢ é ¿,ç ç ¶ç å ç ç å 严é ç¨ åº¦é ½å ¨å¢ é ¿ã å ³äº ä¿ è¿ è è ±å ¥åº·å é¢ é ²å è ½é ç¢ ç è¯ æ ®æ é ã æ ¬æ¬¡é¢ é ²ä¸ å°¿è·¯ç ç ¶(PLUS)ç  ç©¶è ç ç ç  ç©¶æ ¯é¦ ä¸ªå ³äº æ­¤æ ¹é ¢ç ç  ç©¶,æ ¨å ¨è§£å ³ç °æ ç å® æ §ç  ç©¶å ¨è¿ æ ¹é ¢ç å·®è· ã è®¾è®¡è¯¥é¡¹ç ¦ç ¹å° ç» ç  ç©¶å° å ¨ä¸ ä¸ªä¸ å ä½ ç½®ç ç¾ å ½ç  ç©¶ä¸­å¿ è¿ è¡ ,ä»¥å ºäº ç¤¾ä¼ ç æ 模å æ¦ å¿µæ¡ æ ¶ç å ç» æ å ç ç ¦ç ¹å° ç» æ å 为æ 导ã æ ¹æ³ è¯¥ç  ç©¶äº 2017å¹´7æ è ·å¾ æ ¹å ã ç ±6-8å 代表6ä¸ªä¸ å å¹´é¾ ç±»å «(ä» 11å² å °65å² ä»¥ä¸ )ç å ä¸ è ç» æ å ±44ä¸ªç ¦ç ¹å° ç» ã æ 们计å æ å ä¸ å äººå £å ä¸ªäººç ¹å¾ ç å ä¸ è ,ä¾ å¦ ç§ æ ã ç§ æ æ¸ æº ã æ è ²ç» å ã ç¤¾ä¼ ç» æµ å °ä½ ã å ä¹¡å± æ° ã èº«ä½ /å ¥åº·ç ¶å µå æ³ å°¿ç³»ç» ç ç ¶ç» å ã å ­ä¸ªç ¦ç ¹å° ç» ç ç  ç©¶å° ä»¥è¥¿ç ­ç è¯­è¿ è¡ ,å¹¶ç¿»è¯ æ è ±è¯­ã ç ¦ç ¹å° ç» ç èª æ ¬å° è¢«ç ¨äº å 容å æ å æ °æ ®è§£é ,ä»¥ç¡®å® å å ç±»ä¸»é¢ ,并é æ æ °å ºç °ç ä¸»é¢ ã è®¨è®ºè¿ é¡¹å ºç¡ æ §ç å® æ §ç  ç©¶æ ¨å ¨ä¸ºæ é« æ ªæ ¥é å° å¹´å æ å¹´å¦ å¥³ç è è ±å ¥åº·ç ç  ç©¶æ ä¾ è¯ æ ®å ºç¡ ã å½±å è¿ é¡¹ç  ç©¶æ å ¯è ½æ ä¾ å ³äº é å° å¹´å æ å¹´å¦ å¥³ç è è ±å ¥åº·ç ç æ´»ç» éª ,ç» éª ç ä¸ å°¿è·¯ç ç ¶å ç ¥è¯ å ç æ³ ç 人ç è¿ ç¨ ä¸­æ °ç è§ è§£å ç 解ãPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151981/1/jan14148_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151981/2/jan14148.pd

Pilot Ecological Momentary Assessment Study of Subjective and Contextual Factors Surrounding E-Cigarette and Combustible Tobacco Product Use among Young Adults

Background: Dual use of e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco products is common in young adults. We aimed to explore how ratings of subjective and contextual factors differed between discrete episodes of e-cigarette use vs. combustible tobacco product smoking among a sample of young adults. Methods: Young adults (N = 29, ages 18–30) who used e-cigarettes and ≥1 combustible tobacco product at least once weekly completed a 1-week smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA). Twice daily random prompts assessed past-15-min use of tobacco products, ratings of subjective factors (e.g., negative affect, craving), and contextual factors related to activity, location, and companionship. A multivariable GEE model assessed whether subjective or contextual factors were associated with e-cigarette vs. combustible tobacco product episodes. Results: 184 tobacco use episodes were reported (39.7% e-cigarette, 60.3% combustible tobacco product). High baseline cigarette dependence, as measured by the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence, was associated with lower odds of e-cigarette vs. combustible tobacco product episodes (aOR 0.01, 95% CI (0.002–0.08); p < 0.001). Neither between- or within-subjects negative affect or craving scores were associated with e-cigarette use. Activities of eating/drinking (aOR 0.20, 95% CI (0.08–0.49); p = 0.001) and being in the companionship of a person who smoked cigarettes (aOR 0.13, 95% CI (0.04–0.43); p = 0.001) were associated with lower odds of e-cigarette vs. combustible tobacco product use episodes. However, traveling (aOR 12.02, 95% CI (3.77–38.26); p ≤ 0.001) and being in a public space (aOR 2.76, 95% CI (1.10–6.96); p = 0.03) were associated with higher odds of e-cigarette than combustible tobacco product use episodes. Conclusions: This pilot data suggests that unique contextual factors may be associated with e-cigarette use, compared to combustible tobacco smoking in a sample of young adults who use both e-cigarettes and combustible tobacco products. Future research with larger samples is needed to better characterize varying contexts and cues for tobacco use among young adults who are dual users

Informing the regulation of e-cigarettes to restrict youth access

Aims: The FDA proposes to regulate e-cigarettes, with a focus on protecting youth. To better inform the FDA, we evaluated how adolescents obtain e-cigarettes, where they use e-cigarettes, and how they view e-cigarettes. Methods: We conducted surveys in 5 high schools and 2 middle schools in CT (N = 5152) in Spring 2014 to assess these important issues. The sample was 51% female and 15.3 (SD = 1.9) years old. Results: Among lifetime-e-cigarette users (23%), 37% reported obtaining e-cigarettes from friends, 13% from tobacco shops, 9% from gas stations, and 7% from online stores. Among adolescents (n = 429) or an online store (n = 367), 77% and 89%, respectively, reported that they were not denied purchase. Lifetime e-cigarette users reported using e-cigarettes in their home (51%), school (25%) and public places where smoking is not allowed (24%). Among the total sample, the availability of different flavors (17%), ability to do smoke tricks (14%), and the ability to customize flavors (9%) were the top appealing components of e-cigarettes. Logistic regression analyses showed that lifetime e-cigarette users were more likely than never-users to view the availability of different flavors (OR = 94.07), the ability to do smoke tricks (OR = 218.74), and the availability of odorless vapors (OR = 4.25) as appealing; whereas, non-users were more likely than lifetime users to view external features of e-cigarettes, such as its shape (OR = 5.11) and the ability to “light up” (OR = 4.38) as appealing. Conclusions: The findings underscore the need to regulate ecigarette sales to minors, including online purchases, and prohibit e-cigarette use indoors where cigarette smoking is prohibited. Furthermore, restricting various flavors, eliminating visible vapors, and reducing the appeal of the e-cigarette design may lessen youth interest

Nicotine concentration of e-cigarettes used by adolescents

Objective: E-cigarettes are popular among youth, but little is known about the nicotine concentrations of e-liquids used by adolescents. Materials and Method: In Spring, 2014, we conducted cross-sectional surveys in four Connecticut high schools and two middle schools. Among past-30-day e-cigarette users (n = 513, 45% female, mean age 15.9 [SD = 1.4]), we examined what nicotine concentration adolescents typically used in their e-cigarettes (range 0-30 mg/mL and I don\u27t know ). We first examined whether age, sex, smoking status, e-cigarette use frequency, and/or e-cigarette acquisition source were associated with using nicotine-free e-liquid, nicotine e-liquid, or not knowing the e-liquid nicotine concentration. Among nicotine users (n = 185), we then examined whether the aforementioned variables were associated with using higher nicotine concentrations. Results: Adolescents reported using nicotine-free e-liquid (28.5%), nicotine e-liquid (37.4%), or not knowing their e-liquid nicotine concentration (34.1%). Nicotine users comprised more smokers and heavier e-cigarette users compared to nicotine-free e-liquid users and those who did not know their nicotine concentration. Nicotine users also comprised more males and were more likely to purchase e-cigarettes online or from tobacco shops compared to those who did not know their nicotine concentration. Among nicotine users, cigarette smoking, male sex, and purchasing e-cigarettes from tobacco shops predicted using higher nicotine concentrations. Conclusions: Adolescents reported using e-liquids with variable nicotine concentrations. Smokers, males, and those who purchased their own e-cigarettes reported using the highest nicotine levels. Of concern, many adolescents were unaware of the nicotine concentration in their e-liquid, raising concerns about inadvertent nicotine exposure among youth

High School Students\u27 Use of Electronic Cigarettes to Vaporize Cannabis

Background and objectives: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use is increasing rapidly among high school (HS) students. Of concern, e-cigarettes can be used to vaporize cannabis, although use rates among adolescents are unknown. We evaluated lifetime rates of using e-cigarettes to vaporize cannabis among all lifetime e-cigarette users (27.9%), all lifetime cannabis users (29.2%), and lifetime users of both e-cigarettes and cannabis (18.8%); common means of vaporizing cannabis including hash oil, wax infused with Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and dried cannabis; and demographic predictors of using e-cigarettes to vaporize cannabis. Methods: In the spring of 2014, 3847 Connecticut HS students completed an anonymous survey assessing e-cigarette and cannabis use. Results: Vaporizing cannabis using e-cigarettes was common among lifetime e-cigarette users, lifetime cannabis users, and lifetime dual users (e-cigarette 18.0%, cannabis 18.4%, dual users 26.5%). Students reported using e-cigarettes to vaporize hash oil (e-cigarette 15.4%, cannabis 15.5%, dual users 22.9%) and wax infused with THC (e-cigarette 10.0%, cannabis 10.2%, dual users 14.8%) and using portable electronic vaporizers to vaporize dried cannabis leaves (e-cigarette 19.6%, lifetime cannabis 23.1%, lifetime dual users 29.1%). Binary logistic regression indicated that male students (odds ratio [OR] = 2.05), younger students (OR = 0.64), lifetime e-cigarette users (OR = 5.27), and lifetime cannabis users (OR = 40.89) were most likely to vaporize cannabis using e-cigarettes. Rates also differed by HS attended. Conclusions: Rates of vaporizing cannabis using e-cigarettes were high. These findings raise concerns about the lack of e-cigarette regulations and the potential use of e-cigarettes for purposes other than vaping nicotine

Sources of Electronic Cigarette Acquisition Among Adolescents in Connecticut

Objectives: We examined sources of e-cigarette acquisition among youth, and changes in these sources between 2014 and 2015. We also assessed whether youth were ever refused the sale of e-cigarettes. Methods: Anonymous, cross-sectional surveys conducted in 5 high schools in 2014 and 2015 in Connecticut assessed demographics, e-cigarette and cigarette use, and e-cigarette acquisition sources (friends/boyfriends/girlfriends, tobacco shops, online, family members, other). We restricted analyses to adolescents younger than 18 years old who had used e-cigarettes in the past month (2014: N = 400, 2015: N = 390). Results: Top sources of e-cigarette acquisition were friends (2014: 50.2%, 2015: 45.4%), tobacco shops (2014: 17.5%, 2015: 12.6%), and online shops (2014: 9.8%, 2015: 10.5%). A multilevel model, controlling for sex, age, and cigarette smoking status, while clustering by schools, showed a decrease in the proportion of youth obtaining e-cigarettes from friends (AOR = .84) between 2014 and 2015. In 2015, 30.5% and 14.2% were refused sale of e-cigarettes from a physical store and an online store, respectively. Conclusions: Peers were the most popular source of e-cigarette acquisition. Many adolescents were able to purchase e-cigarettes from commercial sources. Future studies should continue to conduct surveillance of where adolescents obtain e-cigarettes to inform prevention strategies

E-cigarette Use Among High School and Middle School Adolescents in Connecticut

Introduction: There is limited evidence on electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use among U.S. adolescents. Methods: Cross-sectional, anonymous surveys conducted in 4 high schools (HS; n = 3,614) and 2 middle schools (MS; n = 1,166) in Connecticut in November 2013 examined e-cigarette awareness, use patterns, susceptibility to future use, preferences, product components used (battery type, nicotine content, flavors), and sources of marketing and access. Results: High rates of awareness (MS: 84.3%; HS: 92.0%) and of lifetime (3.5% MS, 25.2 % HS) and current (1.5% MS, 12% HS) use of e-cigarettes was observed. Among those who had not tried e-cigarettes, 26.4% of MS and 31.7% of HS students reported being susceptible to future use. Males (OR = 1.70, p \u3c .01), older students (OR = 1.39, p \u3c .05), Caucasians (OR = 2.01, p \u3c .001), ever cigarette smokers (OR = 13.04, p \u3c .001), and current cigarette smokers (OR = 65.11, p \u3c .001) were more likely to be lifetime e-cigarette users and to report greater future susceptibility (males: OR = 1.30; Caucasians: OR = 1.14; ever cigarette smokers; OR = 3.85; current cigarette smokers; OR = 9.81; ps \u3c .01–.001). Among MS students who were lifetime e-cigarette users, 51.2% reported that e-cigarette was the first tobacco product they had tried. E-cigarettes that were rechargeable and had sweet flavors were most popular. Smokers preferred e-cigarettes to cigarettes. Current cigarette smokers were more likely to initiate with nicotine-containing e-cigarettes, and ever and never cigarette smokers to initiate with e-cigarettes without nicotine. Primary sources for e-cigarette advertisements were televisions and gas stations and, for acquiring e-cigarettes, were peers. Conclusions: Longitudinal monitoring of e-cigarette use among adolescents and establishment of policies to limit access are imperatively needed

Preference for gain- or loss-framed electronic cigarette prevention messages

Background: Effective electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) prevention messages are needed to combat the rising popularity/uptake of e-cigarettes among youth. We examined preferences for e-cigarette prevention messages that either emphasized gains (e.g., You save money by not using e-cigarettes) or losses (e.g., You spend money by using e-cigarettes) among adolescents and young adults. Methods: Using surveys in two middle schools, four high schools, and one college in CT (N = 5405), we assessed students\u27 preferences for gain- or loss-framed e-cigarette prevention messages related to four themes: financial cost, health risks, addiction potential, and social labeling as a smoker. We also assessed whether preferences for each message framing theme differed by sex, school level, cigarette-use status, and e-cigarette use-status. We also examined whether preference for message framing differed by cigarette and e-cigarette susceptibility status among never e-cigarette users. Results: Overall, loss-framing was preferred for message themes related to health risks, addiction potential, and social labeling as a smoker, whereas gain-framing was preferred for message themes related to financial cost. Logistic regression analyses showed that 1) females preferred loss-framed messages for all themes relative to males, 2) lifetime e-cigarette users preferred loss-framed health risks and social labeling messages relative to never users, and 3) high school students preferred gain-framed social labeling messages relative to college students. The preference for message framing did not differ by cigarette or e-cigarette susceptibility. Conclusions: Preference for message framing differed by themes and individual characteristics. This formative research could inform the construction of persuasive e-cigarette prevention messages. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd