Geographic Differences in JUUL Use and Risk Perceptions

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample demographics, JUUL-use behaviors and perceptions, Ohio Buckeye Teen Health Study (BTHS) male participants, 2019.

	Urban n = 531 (60.8%)	Appalachian n = 342 (39.2%)	Total n = 873	p-value^a
Age				.52
14–17 years	56.3% (n = 299)	54.1% (n = 185)	55.4% (n = 484)
18–21 years	43.7% (n = 232)	45.9% (n = 157)	44.6% (n = 389)
Race/Ethnicity				<.001
Non-Hispanic White	68.2% (n = 362)	92.7% (n = 317)	77.8% (n = 679)
Other	31.8% (n = 169)	7.3% (n = 25)	22.2% (n = 194)
Parental education				<.001
High school Degree/GED or less	8.1% (n = 43)	16.8% (n = 57)	11.5% (n = 100)
Some college/associate degree	25.5% (n = 135)	34.4% (n = 117)	29.0% (n = 252)
Bachelor’s degree or higher	66.4% (n = 352)	48.8% (n = 166)	59.5% (n = 518)
Ever JUUL use				.57
Never tried JUUL	70.4% (n = 369)	71.3% (n = 241)	70.8% (n = 610)
Ever tried JUUL	29.6% (n = 155)	28.7% (n = 97)	29.2% (n = 252)
Current JUUL use^b
Yes	40.6% (n = 63)	43.3% (n = 42)	41.7% (n = 105)	.68
No	59.4% (n = 92)	56.7% (n = 55)	58.3% (n = 147)
Perception of JUUL harm				<.001
No harm/little harm	9.2% (n = 47)	7.9% (n = 26)	8.6% (n = 73)
Some harm	55.8% (n = 286)	43.2% (n = 143)	50.8% (n = 429)
A lot of harm	35.1% (n = 180)	48.9% (n = 162)	40.5% (n = 342)
Perception of JUUL addictiveness				.04
Not likely	8.0% (n = 40)	9.3% (n = 30)	8.5% (n = 70)
Somewhat likely	43.4% (n = 218)	34.6% (n = 111)	40.0% (n = 329)
Very likely	48.6% (n = 244)	56.1% (n = 180)	51.5% (n = 424)
Perception of JUUL nicotine compared to cigarettes				.24
More nicotine in cigarette pack	9.8% (n = 47)	8.9% (n = 27)	9.4% (n = 74)
More nicotine in JUUL pod	34.4% (n = 165)	40.3% (n = 123)	36.7% (n = 288)
About the same	55.8% (n = 268)	50.8% (n = 155)	53.9% (n = 423)

a p-value indicated results of chi-square tests assessing whether the distribution of response vary by urban vs. Appalachian status.

b Of those who have ever tried JUUL.

Table 2. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for multivariable logistic regressions testing predictors of current and ever JUUL use, Ohio Buckeye Teen Health Study (BTHS) male participants, 2019.

	Current JUUL use		Ever JUUL use
	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI
Region
Urban	Ref		Ref
Appalachian	1.20	0.77, 1.87	1.15	0.83, 1.60
Age
14–17	Ref		Ref
18–21	2.10	1.35, 3.27	2.20	1.60, 3.04
Perception of JUUL harm
No harm/some harm	Ref		Ref
Some harm	0.64	0.35, 1.18	0.72	0.42, 1.23
A lot of harm	0.14	0.06, 0.30	0.30	0.17, 0.54
Perception of JUUL addictiveness
Not likely	Ref		–	–
Somewhat likely	0.42	0.22, 0.80	–	–
Very likely	0.43	0.22, 0.85	–	–
Perception of JUUL nicotine compared to cigarettes
More in cigarette pack	–	–	Ref
More in JUUL pod	–	–	1.61	0.86, 3.02
About the same	–	–	2.27	1.25, 4.12

Bold indicates significance at alpha=.05.

– This variable was not significant in the univariate analysis and was therefore not included as a predictor for the multivariable analysis.

Note: Variables included in the multivariable model were significant predictors of JUUL use in univariate logistic regression analyses (not shown), not from the chi-square tests of urban/rural differences in Table 1.