Cross-sectional study examines vaping perceptions and behaviors by sex in young adults, suggesting targeted public health strategies.
Importance Understanding sex-based differences in vaping-related perceptions and behaviors is critical for informing targeted public health interventions, particularly in regions where e-cigarette use is emerging. Objective To examine sex differences across multiple vaping-related domains, including behavioral context, perceived utility, risk perception, social norms, and media influence among young adults in Saudi Arabia. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study was conducted among 388 young adults aged 18–24 years in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Data were collected using a structured, theory-informed questionnaire adapted from established tobacco-use instruments. Exposure Sex (male vs. female), monthly income, and marital status. Main Outcomes and Measures Domain-specific scores were derived from 12 vaping-related items grouped into 5 conceptual domains. Scores were categorized into low, medium, and high levels using tertiles. Associations were assessed using ordinal logistic regression. Results Among 388 participants, 228 (58.8%) were male and 160 (41.2%) were female. Males consistently demonstrated higher levels of endorsement across domains. In adjusted models, females had significantly lower odds of higher domain scores across situational use (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45–0.86), perceived utility (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41–0.81), risk perception (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39–0.75), social norms (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45–0.88), and media influence (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.35–0.69). Lower income was also associated with reduced endorsement across multiple domains. Conclusions and Relevance Significant sex-based differences exist in vaping-related perceptions and behaviors among young adults. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific prevention strategies addressing perceived benefits and marketing exposure in emerging vaping contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alodaini et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: