In Australia, there are no nicotine e-cigarettes currently approved on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, meaning that that they can only be lawfully accessed via the relevant pathways available to ‘unapproved therapeutic goods’. From 1 st October 2021 nicotine contained in vaping products was rescheduled under the Australian Poisons Schedule so that these could be dispensed by Australian pharmacists to people with a prescription from a medical practitioner.1 In a supply model that is unique to Australia, nicotine vaping products can be prescribed to individuals using them as part of an attempt to quit smoking, but are otherwise not permitted to be sold in retail outlets, even when a customer has a prescription. A prescription is also now required to import nicotine e-cigarettes from overseas. The primary objective of rescheduling of nicotine vaping products in this manner was to prevent uptake of their use by non-smokers including teenagers.2
In countries where nicotine vaping products are available for general sale to adults, concerns about health risks and addiction have led to calls for a variety of policies and programs that seek to minimise e-cigarette use among young people and non-smokers, including restrictions on advertising and promotion, prohibiting use in smokefree areas, banning flavours that could appeal to youth, raising taxes, implementing health warnings, and prohibiting sales to minors.3, 4 The usefulness of such policies in Australia would need to be assessed in light of the prescription model of legal supply to adults but also any continuing illegal supply of nicotine vaping products to teenagers following the change in scheduling.
Surveys in the US,5, 6 Canada,7 and Australia8 have found strong support for measures that aim to prevent e-cigarette use among teenagers. See Sections 18B.8 and 18B.9 for an overview of current Australian and international regulations.
18B.14.1 Smokefree policies
In the US, research has shown that higher levels of state tobacco control spending is associated with reduced e-cigarette use among young people.9 An analysis of state-based policies in the US found that smokefree legislation for combustible products was associated with increased e-cigarette use among adolescents,10 however a more recent study found that ever and current use of e-cigarettes among youth decreased in states that included e-cigarettes in their smokefree policies.11 Another study similarly found that adults living in US states that included vaping in smokefree policies were less likely to use e-cigarettes compared with those that did not.12 Conversely research in Canada found that bans on e-cigarette use in public places had no effect on vaping or smoking, though noted that violations may be common.13 Smokefree policies in the home may also be protective against e-cigarette use.14, 15
18B.14.2 Banning sales to minors
In US states with T21 policies (i.e., prohibiting sales of tobacco and e-cigarettes to people under 21), an analysis found that use of e-cigarettes remained steady, whilst increasing in states without such policies.11 Research in Canada found that implementation of a ban on e-cigarette sales to minors was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of increase in e-cigarette use; however use continued to increase in provinces with and without such policies.16 Studies have shown that underage young people can often easily purchase e-cigarettes, particularly online,17-19 and that violations of laws banning sales to minors are common.20, 21 In 2018 it was reported that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had conducted large-scale undercover checks of retailers, resulting in a significant number of warning letters for violations related to the illegal sales of JUUL products to youth.22
18B.14.3 Flavour bans
Given the role of flavours in increasing the appeal and use of e-cigarettes among young people (see Section 18B.2.4.5), banning sweet and fruit flavours has been suggested as one approach to curbing youth uptake. In April 2020, the US FDA issued an enforcement policy ceasing “the manufacture, distribution and sale of unauthorized flavoured cartridge-based e-cigarettes,” and requiring manufacturers to reduce youth access. In order to avoid discouraging adults from using the products for quitting smoking, the policy targeted cartridge-based products, such as JUUL, and exempted disposable devices.23 Disposable brands such as Puff Bar (which look almost identical to JUUL) dramatically increased in popularity among young people, and despite being temporarily removed from the market following instruction from the FDA,24 Puff Bar sales resumed in 2021. The company claims that since its e-liquids are not derived from tobacco, and its products are not intended as a treatment, it does not fall under FDA regulation.25 Researchers have noted that it is important to consider the inclusion of products made from synthetic nicotine in policies aiming to discourage use of e-cigarette products.25
Despite concerns that flavour bans could dissuade smokers from using e-cigarettes to quit or stay quit, findings from Canada, England and the US showed that although largely opposed to such bans, many vapers would be willing to use available flavours from a more restricted range.26 A number of jurisdictions in the US have gone beyond the federal Tobacco Control Act and have enacted stricter policies on flavoured tobacco products and e-cigarettes. In late 2019, Massachusetts became the first state to prohibit the sale of all flavoured tobacco products, including flavoured e-cigarettes, and an evaluation found that implementation of this policy was associated with reductions in current e-cigarette use and levels of cigarette use.27 Survey research in San Francisco following implementation of a comprehensive flavour ban also found a reduction in use of e-cigarettes among young adults.28
18B.14.4 Health warnings
A growing number of countries require that e-cigarettes bear warning labels. An experimental study found that text warning labels on e-liquids decreased young adults’ intention to use e-cigarettes, increased harm perception and decreased the appeal of the product, however there were no changes in perceived addictiveness and warnings often failed to grab users’ attention.29 A recent experiment in New Zealand found that among smokers, an addiction warning led to the greatest decrease in appeal, and reduced risk messages such as “If you are a smoker, vaping reduces harms to your health” also decreased appeal among most smokers. Messages about the health risks of vaping reduced the appeal of e-cigarettes among non-smokers.30 Findings from one study suggest that conflicting health warning information (i.e., the presence of both a modified risk and a health risk statement) may reduce the effectiveness of warnings,31 though another found that including both types of messages may promote quitting among smokers.32 As with tobacco warning labels (see Section 12A.4), design elements33-35 are an important consideration in developing prevention messages and e-cigarette warnings, in order to maximise attention and increase harm perceptions. Pictorial warnings may also be more effective than text warnings.36, 37
In the EU, the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) requires that e-cigarette products must state either “ This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance” or “ This product contains nicotine which is a highly addictive substance. It is not recommended for non-smokers”, with experimental research showing that these rate highly on measures of understandability, believability and convincingness.38 A survey of smokers in the EU concluded that the mandated warnings may reduce willingness to use and likelihood of purchasing e-cigarettes, but there were no differences in ratings between a hypothetical reduced risk warning (that is, a warning that compared vaping with smoking: “The Royal College of Physicians (2016) report concluded that e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful than cigarettes”) and no warning.39 Another study similarly found that the TPD warning increased, and a reduced risk warning decreased, perceptions of harm and addictiveness among smokers and non-smokers.40 However, findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) study showed that TPD e-cigarette warnings were not associated with increased perceptions of nicotine harm or relative harm and addictiveness in England among vapers or smokers. Although users from England reported noticing warnings more than Canada, the US, or Australia, noticing was generally low across all groups.41 Another study similarly found that there was no change in reported noticing and reading of e-cigarette warning labels across six European countries following implementation.42 Among teenagers, about one in eight reported noticing health warnings on e-cigarette products in England in 2018. Noticing was more common among vapers and/or smokers, and was associated with higher harm perceptions.43
The US FDA also mandates that e-cigarettes include a health warning: “WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical.” 44 Research suggests that this warning is believable and understandable, and effectively communicates health risks, compared with reduced risk warnings.45 Another study supported the beneficial effects of these text-only warnings, but also found that pictorial warnings may further increase effectiveness. Such warnings also reduced interest in smoking among smokers.37 In 2020, about one in five high school students in the US reported high levels of exposure to e-cigarettes warnings,46 and several studies have shown that higher exposure is associated with increased harm perceptions among US teens.43, 46
A systematic review of the impact of e-cigarette warning labels found that nicotine addiction messages (such as those mandated in the US and the EU) resulted in greater perceptions of health and addiction risks, and reduced smokers’ intention to purchase, try or switch to e-cigarettes. Relative risk messages (that compared the risks of vaping to smoking) increased perceptions that e-cigarettes are less harmful, and increased smokers’ intention to purchase, try or switch to e-cigarettes. Trust in information from public health agencies was associated with lower odds of vaping and perceiving vaping as less harmful, while trust in information from e-cigarette companies was associated with perceptions of e-cigarettes as less harmful than cigarettes.47
Several countries and jurisdictions have introduced special taxes on e-cigarettes. Some have argued against high taxes on e-cigarettes, particularly if prices exceed those of combustible cigarettes, as it may encourage the use of cigarettes over e-cigarettes.48, 49 A number of studies have suggested that e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes are substitutes, with higher cigarette prices being associated with increased e-cigarette sales.50, 51 However, others have noted that not adequately taxing e-cigarettes could result in higher use among young people.52 Raising taxes on e-cigarettes to deter initiation by never smokers, alongside concomitant greater tax increases on cigarettes to encourage switching among smokers, has been suggested as one possible regulatory path in countries that allow general sale of both products.51
Studies examining price sensitivity (i.e., the extent to which people’s purchasing decisions are affected by the price of products) in the US53 and the EU51 have consistently found that e-cigarette demand is responsive to price, possibly even more so than tobacco cigarettes (see Section 13.1), suggesting that increasing taxes on e-cigarettes could potentially reduce use. A study estimating the effect of price on JUUL use among adolescents found that teenagers become more price sensitive as the price of e-cigarettes increases, particularly for non-users. It estimated that a 10% increase in price could result in up to a 24% reduction in JUUL demand among adolescents using nicotine, and up to a 45% reduction among those not currently using nicotine.54 Research in the US comparing e-cigarette use in states with and without statewide vaping product excise tax policies has found significantly lower increases in e-cigarette use prevalence among young adults in states with such policies,55 but not among adolescents.11 The authors suggest that state e-cigarette taxes may not be high enough to achieve reductions in use among young people.11
18B.14.6 Public education campaigns
A number of comprehensive reviews have concluded that, when included as part of a comprehensive tobacco control program, mass media campaigns can positively influence smoking behaviour56, 57 (see also Chapter 14). The most consistent evidence is for the effectiveness of mass media campaigns in reducing smoking among adults,56, 58 though studies also suggest that adult-targeted campaigns can reduce smoking behaviour among young people.57 There is also evidence that well-developed youth-targeted campaigns can reduce smoking among adolescents and young adults. 57, 59 In light of this evidence, researchers have begun to develop anti-e-cigarette public education campaigns with the aim of reducing use among youth.60 Experimental research has examined message elements that could maximise the effectiveness of campaigns; for example, loss-framed messages61, 62 or those that evoke fear,63 negative descriptions of e-cigarette users (inducing social identity threat), 64 images that show vapour, devices/e-liquids, and those from warning labels,65 and information about financial costs,66 links with the tobacco industry,66 harmful constituents66-68 and health risks.69-71 Consulting with young people themselves69, 72-74 and with traditionally hard-to-reach groups75 may also form an important part of message development.76
Given the difficulty in developing public health messages for e-cigarettes (as there is scarce research and a rapidly evolving market), researchers have suggested a number of steps in planning a campaign for novel health behaviours: (1) creating a comprehensive and complementary set of beliefs, (2) identifying overarching themes and nuances within themes and beliefs, (3) identifying appropriate and relevant language for the target population, and (4) prioritising beliefs for message testing.77 An examination of existing vaping prevention messages found that while there is wide variation in content, the most common themes are addiction, chemicals, health effects, and industry targeting, and most messages include images78 (see comprehensive database here). Qualitative research with young people and parents that assessed their reactions to existing prevention messages emphasised the importance of ads being relatable and believable, perhaps through the use of personal testimonials. Messages that highlight links between e-cigarettes and the tobacco industry, and target youth who are already addicted to e-cigarettes, may also be effective and worthwhile.79
In 2018, the US FDA launched a public education campaign to educate teenagers about the risks of e-cigarettes, including health effects and addiction, as part of its ‘Real Cost’ campaign that initially focused on cigarette smoking.80 Research informing the development of this campaign found that messages focusing on addiction or flavours alone did not resonate with young people; rather, pairing these concepts with strong health effects messages showed the most promise for discouraging vaping.81 Subsequent qualitative research also supported this finding.79 One experimental study comparing the perceived effectiveness of the Real Cost ads with “news style” informational ads found that the Real Cost ads were rated higher. Perceived risks of vaping were also higher following exposure to the Real Cost ads, however there were no differences in intention to vape (though this was low overall).82 Additional experimental research examining the effects of the campaign found that it did succeed in generating higher risk beliefs about the harms of vaping, creating more negative attitudes toward vaping, and reducing intentions to use e-cigarettes among US adolescents.83
Also in 2018, the Truth campaign aired a series of anti-e-cigarette media messages in the US targeting young people (aged 15–24), particularly focussing on the JUUL brand which had become extremely popular in that age group. Survey research using a national sample of young people underpinned the development of campaign messages, and identified five message themes for targeting e-cigarette use: social acceptability of vaping (i.e., “vaping is ok to do socially with friends”); anti-vape industry sentiment (i.e., “people should be angry at vape companies for promoting their products to young people”); independence from vaping (i.e., “I am more in control of my life when I don't vape”); and non-vaping identity (i.e., “I want to be part of a community that rejects vaping”).84 An early evaluation of the campaign found that young people who reported frequent exposure to the campaign ads demonstrated higher levels of knowledge about addiction and health effects, as well as more negative attitudes toward the products and the e-cigarette industry.85 Longitudinal research also found that higher brand equity (that is, positive perceptions of the ‘Truth’ brand) was significantly associated with greater anti-e-cigarette attitudes and lower odds of intention to use e-cigarettes over time.86
In December 2018, Health Canada launched a youth vaping prevention campaign to reach youth (13 to 18 years of age), parents, trusted adults and educators. The campaign aimed to “prevent youth uptake of vaping by: educating youth about the harms and risks associated with using vaping products; providing parents, adults and educators with resources to support conversations with youth about vaping; and increasing awareness of where to get more information on vaping.” An evaluation of the advertising campaign found that 26% of teens who reported having seen the advertisements decided not to vape as a result of the advertisements.87 Health Canada has also launched a campaign aiming to assist parents and other significant adults to discourage vaping among young people.88 Given its near-ubiquitous use among young people, researchers have also explored the role of social media in educating teenagers about the risks of vaping, particularly as there has been a proliferation of e-cigarette promotion and discussion on social media in recent years (see Section 18B.2). A small pilot study found that teenagers were receptive to text messages about the harms and risks of e-cigarettes.89 Among a sample of adolescents, an experimental study exploring social media messages about e-cigarette risks found that exposure led to increased knowledge about e-cigarette harms, addiction, and constituents.90 The ‘Rethink Vape’ online campaign was developed based on extensive research and consultation with adolescents, and it communicated three main messages: what’s in the vapour, health risks, and connections to the tobacco industry. Results of a pilot study showed that it increased vaping knowledge, perceptions of risk, and anti-vape intentions, and its launch in 2018 resulted in good reach to young people on social media.72 Social media can also be used to assess reactions to e-cigarette regulations and public education campaigns,91-93 and to target particular groups with campaign messages.94
18B.14.7 School-based programs
Programs and policies have also been developed and implemented in some US high schools, aiming to prevent e-cigarette use among young people.95-97 For example, as at mid-2020 the ‘CATCH my Breath’ e-cigarette prevention program had been adopted in 4,000 US schools,98 and an evaluation of its pilot program found that ever e-cigarette use was lower among middle schools that implemented the program than among those that did not.95 Another evaluation, this time looking at its effects in a small middle school, found that while knowledge about e-cigarettes improved postintervention, there was no change in attitudes about vaping, and susceptibility toward vaping increased or remained the same.99 Research in Canada examining school-based e-cigarette prevention and cessation programs found that such programs generally had no effect on e-cigarette uptake. Further, students at schools that implemented a prevention “theme week” had higher odds of e-cigarette initiation, with the authors concluding that more evidence-based guidelines and tools for schools are needed.100 Evaluation of a 30-minute e-cigarette educational session for middle and high school students in Alabama based on the Stanford Tobacco Prevention Toolkit97 found that it did increase knowledge and perceptions of harm and addiction, and reduce intent to vape.101 Research also suggests that peer leaders may increase the acceptability of programs102 and reduce e-cigarette acceptability and use.103 School policies may also be helpful, with research in Canada showing that a ban on the use of e-cigarettes on school property may have contributed to decreased use of e-cigarettes among students.104 There have been reports in Australia of schools installing ‘vape detectors’ in bathrooms in order to monitor and discourage use.105 Given the high rates of use among young adults in the US, colleges/universities may also play an important role in education and prevention.106
Despite some of these programs showing promise, a review in 2020 found that that there are few adolescent-focused e-cigarette prevention programs, and most have not been evaluated. There is wide variation among the different educational programs, and often insufficient information available about their development, theoretical foundations, and delivery.107
18B.14.8 Other approaches to preventing vaping
Outside of the school environment, there may be other opportunities to educate young people about the harms of vaping and reduce their risk of use. Doctors and other health professionals who have regular contact with young people and parents can offer education and brief interventions—see Section 18B.13.2. Resources have also been developed to help parents have conversations with their teenagers about vaping.108 Given that many adolescents regularly play videogames, researchers in the US have begun to develop videogame interventions to educate about and prevent e-cigarette use.109 Evaluation of a virtual reality game showed that it improved adolescents’ knowledge about e-cigarettes and addiction.110
See Section 18B.13.2 for a discussion of interventions to help young people who use e-cigarettes to quit vaping.
Relevant news and research
For recent news items and research on this topic, click here. ( Last updated February 2022)
1. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Notice of final decision to amend the current Poisons Standard - nicotine. 21 December.Canberra: Government of Australia 2021. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/scheduling-decision-final/notice-final-decision-amend-current-poisons-standard-nicotine.
2. Therapeutic Goods Administration. Proposal to prevent the uptake of nicotine containing e-cigarettes by ever users (adolescents and young adults), to support smoking cessation and to reduce nicotine poisonings of children: Regulation Impact Statement for the Secretary of the Department of Health and his delegate including when acting under s52D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Canberra: Government of Australia 2021. Available from: https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/nicotine-scheduling-regulation-impact-statement-ris.pdf.
3. Lindblom EN. Effectively regulating e-cigarettes and their advertising—and the first amendment. Food & Drug Law Journal, 2015; 70:57–94. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26292472/
4. Krawitz M. We didn't start this fireless vapour: e-cigarette legislation in Australia. J Law Med, 2014; 22(2):462–81. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25715544
5. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. New Poll: Voters Overwhelmingly Support Trump Administration’s Plan to Take Flavored E-Cigarettes off the Market, in Tobacco Free Kids2019. Available from: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press-releases/2019_10_10_ecig_poll.
6. Czaplicki L, Perks SN, Liu M, Cuccia A, Patel M, et al. Support for E-cigarette and Tobacco Control Policies Among Parents of Adolescents. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2020; 22(7):1139–1147. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31793996
7. Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control. Canadians support urgent government action to address youth vaping: leger poll, in Cision2019. Available from: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadians-support-urgent-government-action-to-address-youth-vaping-leger-poll-834485134.html.
8. The Royal Children's Hospital. E-cigarettes, vaping and teens: Do parents know the dangers? , 2020. Available from: https://www.rchpoll.org.au/polls/e-cigarettes-vaping-and-teens-do-parents-know-the-dangers/.
9. Tauras J, Diaz MC, Schillo B, and Vallone D. Examination of the association between state tobacco control spending and the demand for electronic cigarettes by high school students. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34873030
10. Hawkins SS, Ghiani M, and Baum CF. Associations Between State Tobacco Control Policies and Adolescent ENDS Use. J Public Health Manag Pract, 2019; 25(6):529–536. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30180120
11. Choi K, Omole T, Wills T, and Merianos AL. E-cigarette-inclusive smoke-free policies, excise taxes, tobacco 21 and changes in youth e-cigarette use: 2017-2019. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33632806
12. Lee B, Lin HC, and Seo DC. Inclusion of electronic nicotine delivery systems in indoor smoke-free air policies and associated vaping behavior. Addictive Behaviors, 2019; 98:106061. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31377449
13. Nguyen HV and Bornstein S. Changes in adults' vaping and smoking behaviours associated with aerosol-free laws. Tobacco Control, 2021; 30(6):644–652. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32934091
14. Valentine N, McClelland E, and McMillen R. Smoke-Free Ordinances and Policies Protect Youth, but Ordinances Appear to Have Little Impact on Non-Combustible Tobacco Use. Children (Basel), 2019; 6(3). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30862097
15. Azagba S, Shan L, and Manzione L. Associations of home and workplace vaping restrictions with e-cigarette use among US adults. Preventive Medicine, 2020; 139:106196. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32653356
16. Nguyen HV. Association of Canada's Provincial Bans on Electronic Cigarette Sales to Minors With Electronic Cigarette Use Among Youths. JAMA Pediatrics, 2020; 174(1):e193912. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31682725
17. Kilcommons S, Horwitz S, Eon Ha S, Ebbert K, Restivo L, et al. Is Canadian federal legislation effective in preventing youth access to vaping initiation products? A study using secret shoppers and online access in three Alberta cities. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2020; 19:101117. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32637300
18. Schiff SJ, Kechter A, Simpson KA, Ceasar RC, Braymiller JL, et al. Accessing Vaping Products When Underage: A Qualitative Study of Young Adults in Southern California. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2021; 23(5):836–841. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33135743
19. Gaiha SM, Henriksen L, Halpern-Felsher B, Rogers T, Feld AL, et al. Sources of flavoured e-cigarettes among California youth and young adults: associations with local flavoured tobacco sales restrictions. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33850007
20. Dai H, Hao J, and Catley D. Retail violations of sales to minors on e-cigarettes and cigars. Public Health, 2020; 187:36–40. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32889230
21. Schiff S, Liu F, Cruz TB, Unger JB, Cwalina S, et al. E-cigarette and cigarette purchasing among young adults before and after implementation of California's tobacco 21 policy. Tobacco Control, 2021; 30(2):206–211. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32108084
22. Gottlieb S. Statement from FDA Commissioner on new enforcement actions and a Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan to stop youth use of, and access to, JUUL and other e-cigarettes, in US Food & Drug Administration2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm605432.htm.
23. Food and Drug Administration. FDA finalizes enforcement policy on unauthorized flavored cartridge-based e-cigarettes that appeal to children, including fruit and mint. 2020. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-finalizes-enforcement-policy-unauthorized-flavored-cartridge-based-e-cigarettes-appeal-children
24. US Food and Drug Administration. FDA Notifies Companies, Including Puff Bar, to Remove Flavored Disposable E-Cigarettes and Youth-Appealing E-Liquids from Market for Not Having Required Authorization, in FDA2020. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-notifies-companies-including-puff-bar-remove-flavored-disposable-e-cigarettes-and-youth.
25. Chu KH, Hershey TB, and Sidani JE. Collaborative Public Health Strategies to Combat e-Cigarette Regulation Loopholes. JAMA Pediatrics, 2021; 175(11):1102–1104. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34398212
26. Gravely S, Smith DM, Liber AC, Cummings KM, East KA, et al. Responses to potential nicotine vaping product flavor restrictions among regular vapers using non-tobacco flavors: Findings from the 2020 ITC Smoking and Vaping Survey in Canada, England and the United States. Addictive Behaviors, 2022; 125:107152. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34695685
27. Hawkins SS, Kruzik C, O'Brien M, and Levine Coley R. Flavoured tobacco product restrictions in Massachusetts associated with reductions in adolescent cigarette and e-cigarette use. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33504582
28. Yang Y, Lindblom EN, Salloum RG, and Ward KD. The impact of a comprehensive tobacco product flavor ban in San Francisco among young adults. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 2020; 11:100273. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32368612
29. Gantiva C, Angel-Sanint L, and Velasco-Vivas A. Impact of e-liquid warning labels on young adults' perception of e-cigarettes and intention to use them: an experimental online study. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34880122
30. Hoek J, Gendall P, Eckert C, Louviere J, Ling P, et al. Analysis of on-pack messages for e-liquids: a discrete choice study. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33495280
31. Katz SJ, Erkkinen M, Lindgren B, and Hatsukami D. Assessing the Impact of Conflicting Health Warning Information on Intentions to Use E-Cigarettes -An Application of the Heuristic-Systematic Model. J Health Commun, 2018; 23(10-11):874–885. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30358500
32. Yang B and Popova L. Communicating risk differences between electronic and combusted cigarettes: the role of the FDA-mandated addiction warning and a nicotine fact sheet. Tobacco Control, 2020; 29(6):663–671. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31641058
33. Mays D, Villanti A, Niaura RS, Lindblom EN, and Strasser AA. The Effects of Varying Electronic Cigarette Warning Label Design Features On Attention, Recall, and Product Perceptions Among Young Adults. Health Commun, 2019; 34(3):317–324. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29236529
34. King JL, Simper C, Razzouk J, and Merten JW. The Impact of Varying Warning Color on E-Cigarette Advertisements: Results From an Online Experiment Among Young Adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2021; 23(9):1536–1541. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33713411
35. Li Y, Yang B, Henderson K, and Popova L. A Content Analysis of US Adults' Open-Ended Responses to E-Cigarette Risk Messages. Health Commun, 2020:1–11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33124482
36. Sontag J, Manderski MTB, Hammond D, and Wackowski OA. US young adults' perceived effectiveness of draft pictorial e-cigarette warning labels. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(e1):e49–e51. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31167901
37. Brewer NT, Jeong M, Hall MG, Baig SA, Mendel JR, et al. Impact of e-cigarette health warnings on motivation to vape and smoke. Tobacco Control, 2019. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31292169
38. Kimber C, Cox S, Frings D, Albery IP, and Dawkins L. Development and testing of relative risk-based health messages for electronic cigarette products. Harm Reduct J, 2021; 18(1):96. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34496865
39. Cox S, Frings D, Ahmed R, and Dawkins L. Messages matter: The Tobacco Products Directive nicotine addiction health warning versus an alternative relative risk message on smokers' willingness to use and purchase an electronic cigarette. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 2018; 8:136–139. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30263928
40. Kimber C, Frings D, Cox S, Albery IP, and Dawkins L. Communicating the relative health risks of E-cigarettes: An online experimental study exploring the effects of a comparative health message versus the EU nicotine addiction warnings on smokers' and non-smokers' risk perceptions and behavioural intentions. Addictive Behaviors, 2020; 101:106177. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31753541
41. Taylor E, Aleyan S, East K, Cummings KM, Thrasher JF, et al. Associations Between Noticing Nicotine Vaping Product Health Warning Labels, Harm Perceptions, and Use among adult vapers, current and former smokers. Findings From the 2018 ITC Four Country Smoking and Vaping Survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34893915
42. Nikitara K, Girvalaki C, Kyriakos CN, Driezen P, Filippidis FT, et al. Changes in electronic cigarette use and label awareness among smokers before and after the European Tobacco Products Directive implementation in six European countries: findings from the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys. European Journal of Public Health, 2020; 30(Suppl_3):iii62–iii67. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32918814
43. Sontag JM, Wackowski OA, and Hammond D. Baseline assessment of noticing e-cigarette health warnings among youth and young adults in the United States, Canada and England, and associations with harm perceptions, nicotine awareness and warning recall. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2019; 16:100966. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31453077
44. Food and Drug Administration. "Covered" Tobacco Products and Roll-Your-Own/ Cigarette Tobacco Labeling and Warning Statement Requirements. 2020. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/covered-tobacco-products-and-roll-your-own-cigarette-tobacco-labeling-and-warning-statement#warning.
45. Berry C and Burton S. Reduced-Risk Warnings Versus the US FDA-Mandated Addiction Warning: The Effects of E-Cigarette Warning Variations on Health Risk Perceptions. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2019; 21(7):979–984. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30165494
46. Kowitt SD, Cornacchione Ross J, Goldstein AO, Jarman KL, Thrasher JF, et al. Youth Exposure to Warnings on Cigar, E-Cigarette, and Waterpipe Tobacco Packages. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2021; 61(1):80–87. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33849776
47. Erku DA, Bauld L, Dawkins L, Gartner CE, Steadman KJ, et al. Does the content and source credibility of health and risk messages related to nicotine vaping products have an impact on harm perception and behavioural intentions? A systematic review. Addiction, 2021; 116(12):3290–3303. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33751707
48. Pesko MF, Courtemanche CJ, and Catherine Maclean J. The effects of traditional cigarette and e-cigarette tax rates on adult tobacco product use. J Risk Uncertain, 2020; 60(3):229–258. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33584006
49. Liber AC, Drope JM, and Stoklosa M. Combustible cigarettes cost less to use than e-cigarettes: global evidence and tax policy implications. Tobacco Control, 2017; 26(2):158–163. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27022059
50. Yao T, Sung HY, Huang J, Chu L, St Helen G, et al. The impact of e-cigarette and cigarette prices on e-cigarette and cigarette sales in California. Preventive Medicine Reports, 2020; 20:101244. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33240784
51. Stoklosa M, Drope J, and Chaloupka FJ. Prices and E-Cigarette Demand: Evidence From the European Union. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2016; 18(10):1973–1980. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27085083
52. Saffer H, Dench D, Grossman M, and Dave D. E-Cigarettes and Adult Smoking: Evidence from Minnesota. J Risk Uncertain, 2020; 60(3):207–228. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32943812
53. Huang J, Tauras J, and Chaloupka FJ. The impact of price and tobacco control policies on the demand for electronic nicotine delivery systems. Tobacco Control, 2014; 23 Suppl 3:iii41–7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24935898
54. Corrigan JR, Hackenberry BN, Lambert VC, Rousu MC, Thrasher JF, et al. Estimating the price elasticity of demand for JUUL E-cigarettes among teens. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2021; 218:108406. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33246709
55. Han DH, Seo DC, and Lin HC. Statewide vaping product excise tax policy and use of electronic nicotine delivery systems among US young adults, 2014-2019. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34326194
56. Durkin S, Brennan E, and Wakefield M. Mass media campaigns to promote smoking cessation among adults: an integrative review. Tobacco Control, 2012; 21(2):127–38. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345235
57. US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among young people: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/50th-anniversary/index.htm.
58. Bala MM, Strzeszynski L, and Topor-Madry R. Mass media interventions for smoking cessation in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017; 11:CD004704. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29159862
59. Duke JC, MacMonegle AJ, Nonnemaker JM, Farrelly MC, Delahanty JC, et al. Impact of The Real Cost Media Campaign on Youth Smoking Initiation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2019; 57(5):645–651. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31443954
60. Gaiha SM and Halpern-Felsher B. Stemming the tide of youth E-cigarette use: Promising progress in the development and evaluation of E-cigarette prevention and cessation programs. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 120:106960. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33940340
61. Cai X and Zhao X. Framing Youth Vaping Prevention Messages: The Role of Uncertainty Tolerance. Health Commun, 2021:1–11. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34378472
62. Liu S and Yang JZ. Incorporating Message Framing into Narrative Persuasion to Curb E-Cigarette Use Among College Students. Risk Anal, 2020; 40(8):1677–1690. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32390210
63. Sun C, Wang F, and Jiang M. How Can E-Cigarette Fear Appeals Improve the Perceived Threat, Fear, Anger, and Protection Motivation of Young People. Front Psychol, 2021; 12:676363. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34526929
64. Ma R and Ma Z. What if I Tell You E-Cigarette Users are Inferior? An Investigation of Social Identity Threat in Health Messaging. J Health Commun, 2021; 26(5):289–298. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34138690
65. Stevens EM, Keller-Hamilton B, Mays D, Unger JB, Wackowski OA, et al. Optimizing Images for an E-Cigarette Messaging Campaign: Liking and Perceived Effectiveness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021; 18(24). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34948597
66. Owusu D, Massey Z, and Popova L. An experimental study of messages communicating potential harms of electronic cigarettes. PLoS One, 2020; 15(10):e0240611. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33085686
67. Wiseman KD, Cornacchione J, Wagoner KG, Noar SM, Moracco KE, et al. Adolescents' and Young Adults' Knowledge and Beliefs About Constituents in Novel Tobacco Products. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2016; 18(7):1581–7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26764259
68. Owusu D, Lawley R, Yang B, Henderson K, Bethea B, et al. 'The lesser devil you don't know': a qualitative study of smokers' responses to messages communicating comparative risk of electronic and combusted cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 2020; 29(2):217–223. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31040224
69. Escoto A, Watkins SL, Welter T, and Beecher S. Developing a targeted e-cigarette health communication campaign for college students. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 117:106841. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588289
70. Villanti AC, LePine SE, West JC, Cruz TB, Stevens EM, et al. Identifying message content to reduce vaping: Results from online message testing trials in young adult tobacco users. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 115:106778. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33341530
71. Grummon AH, Hall MG, Mitchell CG, Pulido M, Mendel Sheldon J, et al. Reactions to messages about smoking, vaping and COVID-19: two national experiments. Tobacco Control, 2020. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33188150
72. England KJ, Edwards AL, Paulson AC, Libby EP, Harrell PT, et al. Rethink Vape: Development and evaluation of a risk communication campaign to prevent youth E-cigarette use. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 113:106664. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33038677
73. Cavallo DA, Kong G, Ells DM, Camenga DR, Morean ME, et al. Youth generated prevention messages about electronic cigarettes. Health Education Research, 2019; 34(2):247–256. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30753438
74. Wackowski OA, Rashid M, Greene KL, Lewis MJ, and O'Connor RJ. Smokers' and Young Adult Non-Smokers' Perceptions and Perceived Impact of Snus and E-Cigarette Modified Risk Messages. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020; 17(18). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32961924
75. Cartujano-Barrera F, Azogini C, McIntosh S, Bansal-Travers M, Ossip DJ, et al. Developing Graphic Messages for Vaping Prevention Among Black and Latino Adolescents: Participatory Research Approach. J Particip Med, 2021; 13(3):e29945. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34812734
76. Yang B, Owusu D, and Popova L. Testing messages about comparative risk of electronic cigarettes and combusted cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(4):440–448. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30104408
77. Sangalang A, Volinsky AC, Liu J, Yang Q, Lee SJ, et al. Identifying Potential Campaign Themes to Prevent Youth Initiation of E-Cigarettes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2019; 56(2 Suppl 1):S65–S75. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30661528
78. Kresovich A, Sanzo N, Brothers W, Prentice-Dunn H, Boynton MH, et al. What’s in the message? An analysis of themes and features used in vaping prevention messages. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 2021:100404. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352853221000675
79. Popova L, Fairman RT, Akani B, Dixon K, and Weaver SR. "Don't do vape, bro!" A qualitative study of youth's and parents' reactions to e-cigarette prevention advertisements. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 112:106565. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32795737
80. US Food & Drug Administration. Statement from FDA Commissioner on launch of ‘The Real Cost’ Youth E-Cigarette Prevention Campaign amid evidence of sharply rising use among kids, 2018. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm620791.htm.
81. Roditis ML, Dineva A, Smith A, Walker M, Delahanty J, et al. Reactions to electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS) prevention messages: results from qualitative research used to inform FDA's first youth ENDS prevention campaign. Tobacco Control, 2020; 29(5):510–515. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31506379
82. Rohde JA, Noar SM, Prentice-Dunn H, Kresovich A, and Hall MG. Comparison of Message and Effects Perceptions for The Real Cost E-Cigarette Prevention Ads. Health Commun, 2021; 36(10):1222–1230. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32268799
83. Noar SM, Rohde JA, Prentice-Dunn H, Kresovich A, Hall MG, et al. Evaluating the actual and perceived effectiveness of E-cigarette prevention advertisements among adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 2020; 109:106473. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32521287
84. Rath JM, Romberg AR, Perks SN, Edwards D, Vallone DM, et al. Identifying message themes to prevent e-cigarette use among youth and young adults. Preventive Medicine, 2021; 150:106683. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34119596
85. Hair EC, Kreslake JM, Rath JM, Pitzer L, Bennett M, et al. Early evidence of the associations between an anti-e-cigarette mass media campaign and e-cigarette knowledge and attitudes: results from a cross-sectional study of youth and young adults. Tobacco Control, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34290134
86. Rath J, Tulsiani S, Evans WD, Liu S, Vallone D, et al. Effects of branded health messages on e-cigarette attitudes, intentions, and behaviors: a longitudinal study among youth and young adults. BMC Public Health, 2021; 21(1):1144. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34130636
87. Health Canada. Youth Vaping Prevention Public Education. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2020. Last update: 8 Jul 2020; Viewed 30 Jan. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2020/07/youth-vaping-prevention-public-education.html.
88. Health Canada, Preventing kids and teens from vaping. Ottawa: Government of Canada; 2022. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/smoking-tobacco/preventing/vaping.html.
89. Noar SM, Rohde JA, Horvitz C, Lazard AJ, Cornacchione Ross J, et al. Adolescents' receptivity to E-cigarette harms messages delivered using text messaging. Addictive Behaviors, 2019; 91:201–207. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29960716
90. Lazard AJ. Social Media Message Designs to Educate Adolescents About E-Cigarettes. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 2021; 68(1):130–137. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32654836
91. Allem JP, Escobedo P, Chu KH, Soto DW, Cruz TB, et al. Campaigns and counter campaigns: reactions on Twitter to e-cigarette education. Tobacco Control, 2017; 26(2):226–229. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26956467
92. Harris JK, Moreland-Russell S, Choucair B, Mansour R, Staub M, et al. Tweeting for and against public health policy: response to the Chicago Department of Public Health's electronic cigarette Twitter campaign. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2014; 16(10):e238. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25320863
93. Zhan Q, Emery S, Yu P, Wang C, and Liu Y. Different Anti-Vaping Campaigns Attracting the Same Opponent Community. IEEE Trans Nanobioscience, 2018; 17(4):409–416. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30010583
94. Chu KH, Allem JP, Unger JB, Cruz TB, Akbarpour M, et al. Strategies to find audience segments on Twitter for e-cigarette education campaigns. Addictive Behaviors, 2019; 91:222–226. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30497815
95. Kelder SH, Mantey DS, Van Dusen D, Case K, Haas A, et al. A Middle School Program to Prevent E-Cigarette Use: A Pilot Study of "CATCH My Breath". Public Health Rep, 2020; 135(2):220–229. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31968177
96. Schillo BA, Cuccia AF, Patel M, Simard B, Donovan EM, et al. JUUL in School: Teacher and Administrator Awareness and Policies of E-Cigarettes and JUUL in US Middle and High Schools. Health Promotion Practice, 2020; 21(1):20–24. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31530185
97. Lazaro A, Ceballos R, Fischer M, Smuin S, and Halpern-Felsher B. A novel approach to training educators to conduct school-based adolescent e-cigarette education and prevention: Using the Tobacco Prevention Toolkit. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 118:106858. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33640832
98. Kelder SH, Mantey DS, Van Dusen D, Vaughn T, Bianco M, et al. Dissemination of CATCH My Breath, a middle school E-Cigarette prevention program. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 113:106698. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33130463
99. Baker KA, Campbell NJ, Noonan D, Thompson JA, and Derouin A. Vaping Prevention in a Middle School Population Using CATCH My Breath. J Pediatr Health Care, 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34620523
100. Williams GC, Cole AG, de Groh M, Jiang Y, and Leatherdale ST. More support needed: Evaluating the impact of school e-cigarette prevention and cessation programs on e-cigarette initiation among a sample of Canadian secondary school students. Preventive Medicine, 2021; 155:106924. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34929224
101. Gaiha SM, Duemler A, Silverwood L, Razo A, Halpern-Felsher B, et al. School-based e-cigarette education in Alabama: Impact on knowledge of e-cigarettes, perceptions and intent to try. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 112:106519. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32890911
102. Chu KH, Sidani J, Matheny S, Rothenberger SD, Miller E, et al. Implementation of a cluster randomized controlled trial: Identifying student peer leaders to lead E-cigarette interventions. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 114:106726. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33278717
103. Wyman PA, Rulison K, Pisani AR, Alvaro EM, Crano WD, et al. Above the influence of vaping: Peer leader influence and diffusion of a network-informed preventive intervention. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 113:106693. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33069108
104. Milicic S, DeCicca P, Pierard E, and Leatherdale ST. An evaluation of school-based e-cigarette control policies' impact on the use of vaping products. Tobacco Induced Diseases, 2018; 16:35. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31516434
105. Delibasic S and Jenkins O. Victorian schools install vape detectors to stamp out illegal craze, in The Chronicle 2021: Toowoomba. Available from: https://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/victoria/victorian-schools-install-vape-detectors-to-stamp-out-illegal-craze/news-story/c4928be8282c4c707cefd362ee7047b6?btr=eab5169257d1b5b6e18fd1e93227a159.
106. Jun J and Kim J. How do colleges communicate about E-cigarettes? The presentation of risk, policy, and cessation resources on college websites. J Am Coll Health, 2021; 69(8):881–888. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31995460
107. Liu J, Gaiha SM, and Halpern-Felsher B. A Breath of Knowledge: Overview of Current Adolescent E-cigarette Prevention and Cessation Programs. Curr Addict Rep, 2020:1–13. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33204602
108. American Heart Association. Talk Vaping With Your Teen resources help parents have conversations about ending teen e-cigarette use, 2020. Available from: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/talk-vaping-with-your-teen-resources-help-parents-have-conversations-about-ending-teen-e-cigarette-use.
109. Weser VU, Duncan LR, Pendergrass TM, Fernandes CS, Fiellin LE, et al. A quasi-experimental test of a virtual reality game prototype for adolescent E-Cigarette prevention. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 112:106639. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32920455
110. Weser VU, Duncan LR, Sands BE, Schartmann A, Jacobo S, et al. Evaluation of a virtual reality E-cigarette prevention game for adolescents. Addictive Behaviors, 2021; 122:107027. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34225030