BackgroundWe examined whether the implementation of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) policies at the state level (e-cigarette-inclusive smoke-free (ESF) policies, excise taxes on e-cigarettes and raising tobacco legal purchasing age to 21 years (T21)) affected recent upward trends in youth e-cigarette use.MethodsData were from participants from 34 US states who completed the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) state surveys in 2017 and 2019 (n=278 271). States were classified as having or not having ESF policies, any e-cigarette excise tax and T21 policies by 1 January 2019. Participants reported ever, past 30-day and frequent (≥20 days) e-cigarette use; past 30-day combustible cigarette smoking; and age, sex and race/ethnicity. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models assessed whether changes in e-cigarette use over time differed by policy status, adjusting for participants’ demographics and combustible cigarette smoking.ResultsPrevalence of ever and past 30-day youth e-cigarette use in states with ESF policies decreased during 2017–2019, while the prevalence of these measures in states without ESF policies increased. States with T21 policies showed non-significant changes in prevalence of ever and past 30-day youth e-cigarette use, whereas states without T21 policies showed significant increases in ever and past 30-day youth e-cigarette use. States with ESF and T21 policies showed slower increases in youth frequent e-cigarette use. E-cigarette excise taxes were not associated with decreasing prevalence of youth e-cigarette use.ConclusionsState-level ESF and T21 policies could be effective for limiting growth of youth e-cigarette use despite an overall national increase. Higher e-cigarette excise tax rates may be needed to effectively reduce youth e-cigarette use.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring equitable care remains a critical issue for healthcare systems. Nationwide evidence highlights the persistence of healthcare disparities and the need for research-informed approaches for reducing them at the local level. OBJECTIVE: To characterize key contributors in racial/ ethnic disparities in emergency department (ED) throughput times. DESIGN: We conducted a sequential mixed methods analysis to understand variations in ED care throughput times for patients eventually admitted to an emergency department at a single academic medical center from November 2017 to May 2018 (n=3152). We detailed patient progression from ED arrival to decision to admit and compared racial/ethnic differences in time intervals from electronic medical record time-stamp data. We then estimated the relationships between race/ethnicity and ED throughput times, adjusting for several patient-level variables and ED-level covariates. These quantitative analyses informed our qualitative study design, which included observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and physicians. KEY RESULTS: Non-Hispanic Black as compared to non-Hispanic White patients waited significantly longer during the time interval from arrival to the physician's decision to admit, even after adjustment for several ED-level and patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic variables (Beta (average minutes) (SE): 16.35 (5.8); p val-ue=.005). Qualitative findings suggest that the manner in which providers communicate, advocate, and prioritize patients may contribute to such disparities. When the race/ethnicity of provider and patient differed, providers were more likely to interrupt patients, ignore their requests, and make less eye contact. Conversely, if the race/ethnicity of provider and patient were similar, providers exhibited a greater level of advocacy, such as tracking down patient labs or consultants. Physicians with no significant ED throughput disparities articulated objective criteria such as triage scores for prioritizing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the importance of (1) understanding how our communication style and care may differ by race/ethnicity; and (2) taking advantage of structured processes designed to equalize care.

in the proportion of non-daily smoking among current smokers, and has varied by racial/ethnic group over the last decade 2. Specifically, among non-Hispanic White smokers the prevalence of non-daily smoking has decreased from 11% to 10%, among non-Hispanic Black smokers the prevalence has decreased from 13% to 11%, and among Hispanic smokers the prevalence has decreased from 13% to 8% 2. Despite the decline in both daily and non-daily smoking, racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to be light or non-daily ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Prevalence of light daily smoking, <10 cigarettes per day (CPD), and non-daily smoking has increased in the US population. This analysis examined the heterogeneity in past-year smoking behavior, current tobacco use behaviors, and smoking cessation behaviors among light and/or non-daily smokers. METHODS Current adult (≥18 years old) smokers (N=26196) participated in the 2010-2011 US Current Population Survey-Tobacco Use Supplement, which reported current (T1) and past 12-month (T0) smoking behaviors. Responses were categorized by intensity (light ≤10 CPD vs heavy >10 CPD) and frequency (non-daily vs daily). Combinations of T0 and T1 smoking behaviors resulted in 15 smoking trajectories ending in light/non-daily smoking and a 16th category of heavy daily smokers at T1. Differences in demographics, tobacco use, and smoking cessation behaviors were assessed by using weighted multivariable regression models. RESULTS Overall, 46.1% of US smokers were heavy smokers, 24.6% remained light daily smokers and 12.5% remained light non-daily smokers between T0 and T1. Current cigar, smokeless tobacco, and pipe use differed by smoking trajectories (p<0.05). All light and/or non-daily smokers were more likely than heavy daily smokers to have made a quit attempt (p<0.05) but use of cessation treatments varied. Smokers in many light and/or non-daily smoking trajectories were less likely than heavy daily smokers to be aided by healthcare providers for smoking cessation (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Among heavy daily smokers who became light non-daily smokers, the mismatch between intent to quit (80.9%) and receiving advice to set a quit date (33.7%) is one example of a potential opportunity for a clinical intervention.