Motives and Risk Perceptions Among Young Adults Engaged in Frequent Vaping and Dual Cannabis Use: Implications for Prevention and Intervention.

Cavazos-Rehg P.; Li X.; Paraboschi L.; Kasson E.; Meigs L.; Huang M.; Wu D.; Chen L. · Journal of psychoactive drugs · 2026

**Background & Methods** This cross-sectional survey study recruited 97 young adults aged 15-25 who reported vaping in the past month via social media. Participants completed an online assessment of vaping behaviors, perceived health risks, and treatment interest, with comparative analysis between nicotine-only and dual nicotine-cannabis users. **Key Findings** • Frequent vaping was prevalent across the cohort, with participants reporting vaping on average 25 of 30 days; the sample was evenly split between nicotine-only users (49.5%, n=48) and dual users (50.5%, n=49). • Nicotine-only vapers demonstrated significantly lower harm perception, with 65.9% perceiving vaping as less harmful than smoking compared to 39.6% of dual users (p=.01), and reported fewer concerns about negative health consequences (mean 6.6 vs 7.7 on concern scale; p=.01). • Despite two-thirds of participants expressing interest in quitting, less than 5% reported ever receiving cessation treatment, indicating a substantial treatment engagement gap. **Dosage & Administration** Not reported. **Safety & Adverse Effects** Not reported. The study assessed perceived risks rather than documented adverse events or clinical complications. **Evidence Quality** This study has several significant limitations. The cross-sectional design precludes causal inference regarding motives and risk perception associations with vaping patterns. Social media recruitment introduces selection bias, potentially oversampling digitally-engaged users and those more willing to disclose substance use online. The small sample size (n=97) and narrow age range limit generalizability to broader young adult populations. The study lacks objective measures of vaping frequency or substance composition verification. Additionally, self-reported data on sensitive behaviors may be subject to recall and social desirability bias. The extremely low treatment engagement rate (<5%) requires careful interpretation given the stated high interest in quitting—reasons for this discrepancy are unexplored. As a descriptive study without control groups, this research provides Level 4 evidence (observational data) suitable for hypothesis generation but insufficient for clinical recommendations. The findings highlight important gaps in understanding dual-use motivations and risk perception disparities but require validation through larger, more rigorous prospective studies before informing evidence-based intervention development.