Randomized trial demonstrates youth-led intervention enhances vaping knowledge in adolescents, suggesting innovative educational strategies.
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a youth-developed vaping intervention created by the Airdrie Board of Youth Affairs (ABYA) in changing Grade 7 and 8 students’ knowledge, attitudes, and harm perceptions regarding e-cigarette use. The vaping video trial followed a preceding local education program on smoking harms. A total of 107 students were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (ABYA video) or the control group (expert-developed video). Four instruments were used: the Video Survey, Personal Information Questionnaire, Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding E-cigarette Ingredients, Safety, and Addictive Properties (KAS), and the E-cigarette Harm Perception and Reduction (EHI). Pre- and post-intervention data were analyzed using t-tests and Mann–Whitney U tests. Compared with controls, the intervention group showed a significantly larger mean decrease in total EHI scores (mean change 9.05 vs. 2.06; t(105) = 3.34, p = 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.65), indicating that the youth-developed video increased the perceived risk of vaping relative to cigarettes to a greater extent than the expert-developed video. Students also rated the ABYA video significantly higher on a 5-point scale for overall enjoyment (3.13 vs. 2.33; p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 0.81) and for perceived increase in knowledge about vaping (3.34 vs. 2.84; p = 0.023; Cohen’s d = 0.44). The KAS instrument showed low internal consistency in this sample, so item-level KAS findings were treated as exploratory. Notably, unlike the expert-developed video, which explicitly acknowledged uncertainty, the ABYA video conveyed a clearer and more direct message, which may have contributed to its greater appeal while also carrying a risk of overstating absolute risk of e-cigarettes relative to cigarettes. Overall, these findings suggest that grassroots, youth-led interventions may be an effective approach for adolescent vaping education and may offer advantages over traditional expert-developed messaging in some contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: