E-cigarette school policy and staff training: Knowledge and school policy experiences with e-cigarette products among a national sample of US middle and high school staff

BACKGROUND: As youth e-cigarette use has surged in the last several years, teachers and school administrators have reported challenges addressing student use of emerging e-cigarette products on school property. While federal policy prohibits smoking in U.S. schools that receive federal funding, school e-cigarette bans only exist where states or localities have acted. Little is known about school staff experiences with implementing these relatively new policies; this study examines associations between school e-cigarette policies and trainings on school staff awareness and intervention on student e-cigarette use. METHODS: A national convenience sample of 1,526 U.S. middle- and high-school teachers and administrators was surveyed in November-December 2018. Among respondents who provided their job title and indicated that they worked in a school rather than a district (n = 1,480, response rate = 97.0%), separate logistic regressions examine associations of school policies and policy training with e-cigarette awareness and intervention on student e-cigarette use. RESULTS: Despite being the most popular e-cigarette at the time, fewer than half (47.5%) of respondents identified an image of a JUUL device as an e-cigarette. However, respondents reporting the presence of e-cigarette policies in their schools had higher odds of recognizing e-cigarettes (OR = 3.85, p<0.01), including photo recognition of JUUL (OR = 1.90, p<0.001). Respondents reporting e-cigarette policies also had higher odds of reporting intervention on student e-cigarette use (communicating with students about e-cigarette avoidance: OR = 2.32, p<0.001; reporting students had been caught using e-cigarettes at school: OR = 1.54, p<0.05). Among respondents reporting a school e-cigarette policy, those trained on the policy had higher odds of JUUL photo recognition (OR = 1.54, p<0.01). Respondents trained on e-cigarette policies also had higher odds of reporting intervention (communicating: OR = 3.89, p<0.001; students caught using e-cigarettes: OR = 2.71, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As new tobacco products enter the market, school policies may be important tools to raise school personnel awareness of and intervention on emerging e-cigarette product use. However, policy adoption alone is not sufficient; policy training may further aid in recognition and intervention upon student use of e-cigarettes at school.