Published on in Vol 11, No 5 (2022): May

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
eHealth Interventions Targeting Poor Diet, Alcohol Use, Tobacco Smoking, and Vaping Among Disadvantaged Youth: Protocol for a Systematic Review

eHealth Interventions Targeting Poor Diet, Alcohol Use, Tobacco Smoking, and Vaping Among Disadvantaged Youth: Protocol for a Systematic Review

eHealth Interventions Targeting Poor Diet, Alcohol Use, Tobacco Smoking, and Vaping Among Disadvantaged Youth: Protocol for a Systematic Review


The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Lyra Egan, BA, BSc, MPH

The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use

University of Sydney

Level 6, Jane Foss Russell Building (G02)

University of Sydney

Sydney, 2006


Phone: 61 2 9114 4753


Background: Chronic disease burden is higher among disadvantaged populations. Preventing lifestyle risk behaviors such as poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping in adolescence is critical for reducing the risk of chronic disease and related harms in adolescence and adulthood. Although eHealth interventions are a promising prevention approach among the general population, it is unclear whether they adequately serve adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds such as those living in geographically remote or lower socioeconomic areas.

Objective: This is the first systematic review to identify, evaluate, and synthesize evidence for the effectiveness of eHealth interventions targeting adolescents living in geographically remote or lower socioeconomic areas in preventing poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping.

Methods: A systematic search will be conducted in 7 electronic databases: the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PROSPERO, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and PsycInfo (Ovid). The search will be limited to eHealth-based experimental studies (ie, randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies) targeting diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping among adolescents (aged 10-19 years). Eligible studies will be those reporting on at least one marker of socioeconomic status (eg, social class, household income, parental occupation status, parental education, and family affluence) or geographical remoteness (eg, living in rural, regional, and remote areas, or living outside major metropolitan centers). One reviewer will screen all studies for eligibility, of which 25% will be double-screened. Data will be extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Revised Risk of Bias Tool.

Results: As of December 2021, the title and abstract screening of 3216 articles was completed, and the full-text review was underway. The systematic review is expected to be completed in 2022.

Conclusions: This systematic review will provide an in-depth understanding of effective eHealth interventions targeting poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping among adolescents living in geographically remote or lower socioeconomic areas and the factors that contribute to their effectiveness. This in turn will provide critical knowledge to improve future interventions delivered to these populations.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021294119;

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/35408

JMIR Res Protoc 2022;11(5):e35408



Chronic disease burden is considerably higher among disadvantaged populations such as those living in lower socioeconomic or geographically remote areas [1-6]; therefore, disadvantaged adolescent populations may be vulnerable to experiencing greater chronic disease burden in adulthood than their counterparts. Socioeconomic status is an indicator of an individual’s or group’s social and economic position within society and is generally associated with access to resources and health outcomes [7]. In Australia, geographically remote refers to areas outside of major cities, classified in order of remoteness and decreasing level of accessibility to services as inner regional, outer regional, remote, or very remote. According to estimates from 2017 to 2018, 1 in 5 Australians have multiple chronic conditions, and almost half (45.1%) of those with multimorbidity aged ≥18 years live in the lowest 2 socioeconomic areas, compared to 15.2% in the highest socioeconomic area [8]. Moreover, the prevalence of multimorbidity is greater among populations living in inner and outer regional areas than in major cities (21% and 18%, respectively). This pattern is not unique to Australia, with similar sociodemographic differences in multimorbidity reported in several other high-income countries [9-14]. Living with a chronic condition impacts an individual’s quality of life and is accompanied with social and economic costs; this effect is amplified with multimorbidity [15,16]. Health inequity among disadvantaged populations may partially be explained by a degree of disadvantage pertaining to access to health and support services, as well as education and employment opportunities [17,18]. However, targeting lifestyle differences at a community level to reduce the vulnerabilities of disadvantaged populations [19] may provide positive benefits to overall health and narrow the inequalities in health.

Importantly, many chronic diseases share common lifestyle risk factors that are modifiable, such as poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping (electronic cigarette or “e-cigarette” use) [1,20-25]. Thus, reducing or avoiding the engagement in such behaviors can reduce total burden of disease figures. For example, in Australia, 38% of the total burden of disease in 2018 could have been prevented by reducing or avoiding the engagement in modifiable lifestyle behaviors [26]. However, engagement in these behaviors is not uniform across populations, with disparities existing between populations of different socioeconomic positions and between major cities and geographically remote areas. According to the Australia’s Children Report [27], children and adolescents living in the lowest socioeconomic area compared to those living in the highest socioeconomic area had the following differences: children aged 5-14 years were less likely to meet recommended fruit guidelines (63% compared to 74%) and more likely to consume sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) at least once a week (53% compared to 33%); and adolescents aged 12-14 years were more likely to consume alcohol at risky levels (2.2% compared to 0.1%) and be current smokers (2.9% compared to 1.4%). Although not a nationally representative sample, similar sociodemographic differences in diet and alcohol and tobacco use were observed in a recent, large study of 6640 children aged 11-14 years across Australia [28]. Specifically, students of lower socioeconomic status were more likely to use alcohol and tobacco and have poorer diets than students of middle to upper socioeconomic status, and students from regional areas were more likely to use alcohol than students from major cities. Similar sociodemographic differences in diet and alcohol and tobacco use have been reported among adolescents overseas [29-32]. Although vaping has historically been relatively uncommon in Australia, its prevalence has increased over the past decade [33,34]. According to the 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, there has been a significant increase in e-cigarette use among people aged ≥14 years (11.3% in 2019 compared to 8.8% in 2016), with 14.5% of adolescents aged 14-19 years reporting lifetime use of e-cigarettes [33]. Almost half (49.3%) of adolescents aged 14-19 years had never smoked a tobacco cigarette before e-cigarette use. Its use is becoming more common among youth in other countries [35-37], with recent US data from the National Youth Tobacco Survey of 27 million high and middle school students finding that 27.5% (4.1 million) of high school students and 10.5% (1.2 million) of middle school students reported recent use [38]. Moreover, data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study found that e-cigarette use was greater among socioeconomically disadvantaged youth, particularly among never-smokers [39], and the 2018-2019 Kansas Communities That Care Student Survey—a large, cross-sectional, school-based survey of middle and high school students in Kansas (N=132,803)—found that adolescents from rural areas were more likely to report current e-cigarette use than those living in urban areas [40]. A recent meta-analysis of 23 studies found that among people aged <20 years, e-cigarette use triples the risk of initiating tobacco smoking [41]. Although not all individuals who use e-cigarettes will progress to tobacco smoking, they are at risk of experiencing e-cigarette or vaping-associated lung injury [42,43]. Therefore, it is important to consider vaping during adolescence as a chronic disease risk factor.

To reduce the risk of chronic disease in adulthood and address the disproportionately higher rates of chronic disease burden experienced by disadvantaged populations, targeting these behaviors prior to their onset and entrenchment is crucial [44,45]. For a young person, adolescence tends to be a period marked by greater autonomy over their life, as well as increased risk-taking behavior [46-48]. It is a time period in which experimenting with and using alcohol, tobacco smoking, and vaping generally increase [47,49-51]. Moreover, eating habits typically include greater purchasing of fast food away from home [52], along with an increased intake of nutrient-poor food [53], such as discretionary food items (eg, hot chips) [54] and SSBs [55]. These behaviors typically co-occur [56-59] and have been referred to as “consumption behaviors” [60], reflecting that individuals actively consume food, alcohol, or tobacco. In the short-term, these behaviors are linked to detrimental impacts such as poorer quality of life [61], behavioral and mental health issues [62,63], and obesity [64,65]. Several of these behaviors may track into adulthood [66,67], heightening the individual’s risk of chronic disease and associated burden over their lifetime, especially when they co-occur [20,68-70]. Altering this trajectory through the engagement of health promoting behaviors during adolescence shows promise in improving both adolescent and adult health outcomes [71].

Using eHealth interventions (eg, computer-, web-, mobile-, or telephone-based) is an approach with evidence to support its efficacy in targeting multiple risk behaviors in adolescents [72]. Given that eHealth interventions are delivered via the internet, they confer the advantages of increased implementation fidelity, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility, as well as improved student engagement [73,74]. Previous systematic reviews of eHealth interventions targeting at least one of the 4 aforementioned behaviors among adolescents have found them effective in the following areas: improving dietary behavior (eg, eating less unhealthy foods, lowering consumption of total fat and saturated fat, and significantly increasing daily fruit and vegetable intake) [75]; reducing alcohol use [76,77]; and reducing the number of cigarettes and smoking frequency [78]. These reviews, however, focused on adolescents in the general population and did not include vaping as one of the targeted behaviors. It is unclear whether eHealth interventions adequately serve adolescents living in geographically remote or lower socioeconomic areas and are effective in preventing vaping among these populations.

The purpose of this review is to identify, evaluate, and synthesize evidence for the effectiveness of eHealth interventions targeting adolescents (aged 10-19 years) from disadvantaged backgrounds in preventing poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping. Considering the personal, social, and economic burden attributed to poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping, particularly among disadvantaged populations, this systematic review will contribute valuable insights to the knowledge base and ideally guide the future development of effective eHealth interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to focus specifically on eHealth interventions targeting poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping among adolescents with lower socioeconomic backgrounds or living in geographically remote areas.

Guidelines and Registration

This protocol conforms to the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines [79] (see Multimedia Appendix 1) and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021294119).

Eligibility Criteria

The population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes approach was used to address the research question and eligibility criteria for this review [79].


Eligible studies will be human research studies that target adolescents aged 10-19 years, which aligns with the World Health Organization’s definition of “adolescent” [80]. Based on the demographic data presented by authors, studies will be eligible if the sample comprises any of the following: participants with lower socioeconomic status; participants living in rural, regional, or remote areas; and specific sub-group analysis among disadvantaged adolescents. Due to varying methods for measuring and defining socioeconomic status (eg, using the Family Affluence Scale III or Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas scores) and geographical remoteness (eg, based on relative access to services or termed as “countryside,” “village,” or “remote”), studies will not be limited to using the same measures or definitions; instead, socioeconomic status and geographical remoteness will be based on how they are conceptualized within the studies.


Included studies will be those evaluating an eHealth intervention (eg, computer-, web-, mobile-, or telephone-based) targeting at least one consumption behavior—poor diet, alcohol, tobacco smoking, or vaping—among adolescents with lower socioeconomic status or living in geographically remote areas. Interventions addressing other risk behaviors in addition to poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping, such as poor sleep, sedentary screen time, and physical inactivity, will be eligible for inclusion as they may help to identify whether targeting a combination of certain behaviors influences outcomes.


Eligible studies will compare the experimental group to a control group (eg, no intervention, education as usual, or an alternative intervention) or compare the changes in outcomes over time.


Primary outcomes of interest will include the reduced uptake or use of alcohol, tobacco, and vaping and improved or maintained dietary behaviors. Dietary behaviors will include any dietary outcomes, such as consumption of fruit and vegetables, SSBs, and nutrient-poor foods (junk food). Secondary outcomes of interest will include knowledge about diet, alcohol and tobacco use, alcohol-related harms, future intention to adopt health-related behaviors, motivators and barriers to adopting health-related behaviors, and other health behaviors such as sleep, sedentary screen time, and physical activity.


Included studies will be randomized controlled trials (including cluster randomized controlled trials) and quasi-experimental studies. They must be published in English and report original empirical findings. No date range restrictions apply for the included studies.

Search Strategy

A database search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian. Searches will be conducted in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PROSPERO, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and PsycInfo (Ovid). The searching strategy to be used for all electronic databases is provided in Multimedia Appendices 2-8. Study references will be imported into EndNote software (Clarivate) and duplicates will be removed prior to being uploaded to Covidence software (Covidence) for screening. Grey literature websites and resources (eg, World Health Organization), conference abstracts, the reference lists of eligible studies, book chapters, and unpublished works (eg, dissertations and theses) will also be searched to identify any additional studies.

Data Extraction and Screening

To balance rigor with the timeliness of the review, all study titles and abstracts will be screened by one reviewer (LE) against eligibility criteria, with a subset (25%) of studies double-screened by a second reviewer (NN, LAG, or KC). This method has been used in several systematic reviews [72,81,82]. Data will be extracted by one reviewer (LE) and reviewed by a second author (NN, LAG, or KC). Using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication [83], 2 authors (LE and NN, LAG, or KC) will independently pilot the standardized data extraction form by extracting 5 studies and then meet to discuss any required modifications to the form to ensure that all relevant data are captured, such as the following:

  1. Publication details (study authors, year published) and study details (country, setting, sample size, and design)
  2. Participant characteristics (age, gender, and sociodemographic information, including socioeconomic status and geographical remoteness)
  3. Intervention characteristics (mode of delivery, duration and frequency of program, underpinning theory, material and components, and targeted risk behavior)
  4. Comparison group characteristics
  5. Primary and secondary outcomes
  6. Measurement tools

The corresponding authors of the published articles will be contacted if additional information that was not reported is required.

Risk of Bias

The risk of bias of the included studies will initially be judged by one independent reviewer (LE) using the Cochrane Revised Risk of Bias Tool [84]. Sources of bias covered in this tool include the following: randomized allocation to groups, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding outcome, handling of incomplete data, selective reporting, and other biases not covered. A second reviewer (NN, LAG, or KC) will also rate the risk of bias of the included studies, with any inconsistencies resolved through consultation.


A narrative analysis will be adopted to synthesize the study findings from the included studies. To begin, one reviewer (LE) will tabulate the following results to compare study components and findings: sample characteristics (eg, location, socioeconomic status, gender, and age); risk behavior targeted; intervention content and components (including duration and delivery method); underpinning theory; and primary and secondary outcome effect sizes. The quality of the body of evidence will be independently rated by 2 reviewers (LE and NN, LAG, or KC) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework [85]. LE will then follow the UK Economic and Social Research Council guidance for narrative synthesis in systematic reviews [86], identify themes and factors, and subsequently, summarize the studies in a narrative synthesis.

As of December 2021, title and abstract screening of 3216 articles was completed, and full-text review was underway. The results will be summarized in a narrative synthesis. The systematic review is expected to be completed and submitted for publication in 2022.

Disadvantaged adolescents, such as those with lower socioeconomic status or living in geographically remote areas, may be more vulnerable to experiencing greater chronic disease burden than their counterparts, as evidenced by the disproportionate levels of chronic disease burden among disadvantaged adult populations [1-6]. Consumption-related chronic disease risk behaviors, such as poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping, tend to be greater among these populations than their counterparts [27-32,39,40]. In order to reduce this burden, prevention and early intervention is critical. Several systematic reviews have supported the efficacy of universal eHealth interventions in targeting diet and alcohol and tobacco use among adolescents [75-78]; however, it is unclear whether eHealth interventions adequately serve adolescents living in geographically remote or lower socioeconomic areas. In light of this, this review is the first to systematically examine and synthesize evidence on eHealth interventions targeting disadvantaged adolescents (aged 10-19 years) from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds in preventing poor diet, alcohol use, tobacco smoking, and vaping. We expect that literature on eHealth interventions focused on preventing vaping among disadvantaged adolescents may be limited given that its use has only become more common over the past decade, unlike the other behaviors covered in this review. The results from this systematic review will provide valuable knowledge on the important intervention components of effective eHealth interventions and guide the development of tailored eHealth interventions that are better able to prevent and reduce health risk behaviors among these populations. Ultimately, addressing these health risk behaviors to reduce the vulnerabilities of disadvantaged populations [19] has the potential to provide positive benefits to overall health and narrow the inequalities in health. The results from this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conferences to help guide future research projects in this area.


We would like to thank Tess Aitkin, Academic Liaison Librarian at the University of Sydney, for their contribution to the design of the search strategies we will use for the review. LE is supported by a Paul Ramsay Foundation postgraduate scholarship.

Authors' Contributions

All authors (LE, NN, LAG, and KC) conceived the initial idea for the systematic review. LE drafted the manuscript, and NN, LAG, and KC provided critical insights. All authors contributed to the revision of the manuscript and approved the final version.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) checklist.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 183 KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 62 KB

Multimedia Appendix 3

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 62 KB

Multimedia Appendix 4

PROSPERO search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 8 KB

Multimedia Appendix 5

MEDLINE (Ovid) search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 14 KB

Multimedia Appendix 6

Embase (Ovid) search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 14 KB

Multimedia Appendix 7

Scopus search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 10 KB

Multimedia Appendix 8

Psycinfo (Ovid) search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 14 KB

  1. Australian Burden of Disease Study: impact and causes of illness and death in Australia 2015. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2019.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​c076f42f-61ea-4348-9c0a-d996353e838f/​aihw-bod-22.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  2. Niessen LW, Mohan D, Akuoku JK, Mirelman AJ, Ahmed S, Koehlmoos TP, et al. Tackling socioeconomic inequalities and non-communicable diseases in low-income and middle-income countries under the Sustainable Development agenda. Lancet 2018;391(10134):2036-2046. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Talens M, Tumas N, Lazarus JV, Benach J, Pericàs JM. What do we know about inequalities in NAFLD distribution and outcomes? a scoping review. J Clin Med 2021;10(21):5019 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Coates MM, Ezzati M, Robles Aguilar G, Kwan GF, Vigo D, Mocumbi AO, et al. Burden of disease among the world's poorest billion people: an expert-informed secondary analysis of Global Burden of Disease estimates. PLoS One 2021;16(8):e0253073 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Goeres LM, Gille A, Furuno JP, Erten-Lyons D, Hartung DM, Calvert JF, et al. Rural-urban differences in chronic disease and drug utilization in older Oregonians. J Rural Health 2016;32(3):269-279 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Raju S, Brigham EP, Paulin LM, Putcha N, Balasubramanian A, Hansel NN, et al. The burden of rural chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: analyses from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020;201(4):488-491 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Measures of socioeconomic status. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011.   URL: https:/​/www.​​ausstats/​subscriber.nsf/​0/​367D3800605DB064CA2578B60013445C/​$File/​1244055001_2011.​pdf [accessed 2021-10-11]
  8. Chronic condition multimorbidity. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2021.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​892ba9f9-7621-4085-867e-f4239d46fc12/​Chronic-condition-multimorbidity.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  9. Hernández B, Voll S, Lewis NA, McCrory C, White A, Stirland L, et al. Comparisons of disease cluster patterns, prevalence and health factors in the USA, Canada, England and Ireland. BMC Public Health 2021;21(1):1674 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Low LL, Kwan YH, Ko MSM, Yeam CT, Lee VSY, Tan WB, et al. Epidemiologic characteristics of multimorbidity and sociodemographic factors associated with multimorbidity in a rapidly aging Asian country. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2(11):e1915245 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Moin JS, Glazier RH, Kuluski K, Kiss A, Upshur REG. Examine the association between key determinants identified by the chronic disease indicator framework and multimorbidity by rural and urban settings. J Comorb 2021;11:26335565211028157 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Ryan BL, Allen B, Zwarenstein M, Stewart M, Glazier RH, Fortin M, et al. Multimorbidity and mortality in Ontario, Canada: a population-based retrospective cohort study. J Comorb 2020;10:2235042X20950598 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Schiøtz ML, Stockmarr A, Høst D, Glümer C, Frølich A. Social disparities in the prevalence of multimorbidity - a register-based population study. BMC Public Health 2017;17(1):422 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Khanolkar AR, Chaturvedi N, Kuan V, Davis D, Hughes A, Richards M, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in prevalence and development of multimorbidity across adulthood: a longitudinal analysis of the MRC 1946 National Survey of Health and Development in the UK. PLoS Med 2021;18(9):e1003775 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Australia's health 2020: snapshots. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-10-11]
  16. Shi X, Lima SMDS, Mota CMDM, Lu Y, Stafford RS, Pereira CV. Prevalence of multimorbidity of chronic noncommunicable diseases in Brazil: population-based study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2021;7(11):e29693 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Rural and remote health. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2019.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​838d92d0-6d34-4821-b5da-39e4a47a3d80/​Rural-remote-health.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  18. Young Australians: their health and wellbeing 2011. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2011.   URL: [accessed 2021-10-11]
  19. Solar O, Irwin A. A conceptual framework for action on the social determinants of health: social determinants of health discussion paper 2. World Health Organization. 2010.   URL: [accessed 2021-10-11]
  20. Evidence for chronic disease risk factors. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2016.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​96d8d49b-cec9-4ed1-9372-c39bf45406c9/​Evidence-for-chronic-disease-risk-factors.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  21. Australia's health 2020: in brief. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2020.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​2aa9f51b-dbd6-4d56-8dd4-06a10ba7cae8/​aihw-aus-232.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  22. Ng R, Sutradhar R, Yao Z, Wodchis WP, Rosella LC. Smoking, drinking, diet and physical activity-modifiable lifestyle risk factors and their associations with age to first chronic disease. Int J Epidemiol 2020;49(1):113-130 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. Noncommunicable diseases progress monitor 2020. World Health Organization. 2020.   URL: [accessed 2021-10-11]
  24. McAlinden KD, Eapen MS, Lu W, Sharma P, Sohal SS. The rise of electronic nicotine delivery systems and the emergence of electronic-cigarette-driven disease. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol 2020;319(4):L585-L595 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  25. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020;396(10258):1204-1222 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  26. Australian Burden of Disease Study 2018: key findings. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2021.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​d2a1886d-c673-44aa-9eb6-857e9696fd83/​aihw-bod-30.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  27. Australia's children. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2020.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​6af928d6-692e-4449-b915-cf2ca946982f/​aihw-cws-69-print-report.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  28. Champion KE, Chapman C, Gardner LA, Sunderland M, Newton NC, Smout S, Heath4Life team. Lifestyle risks for chronic disease among Australian adolescents: a cross-sectional survey. Med J Aust 2022;216(3):156-157. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Shackleton N, Milne BJ, Jerrim J. Socioeconomic inequalities in adolescent substance use: evidence from twenty-four European countries. Subst Use Misuse 2019;54(6):1044-1049. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Warren JC, Smalley KB, Barefoot KN. Recent alcohol, tobacco, and substance use variations between rural and urban middle and high school students. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse 2017;26(1):60-65 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Palakshappa D, Lenoir K, Brown CL, Skelton JA, Block JP, Taveras EM, et al. Identifying geographic differences in children's sugar-sweetened beverage and 100% fruit juice intake using health system data. Pediatr Obes 2020;15(11):e12663 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  32. Wattelez G, Frayon S, Cavaloc Y, Cherrier S, Lerrant Y, Galy O. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and associated factors in school-going adolescents of New Caledonia. Nutrients 2019;11(2):452 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2020.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​77dbea6e-f071-495c-b71e-3a632237269d/​aihw-phe-270.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  34. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2016: detailed findings. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2017.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​15db8c15-7062-4cde-bfa4-3c2079f30af3/​aihw-phe-214.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2022-01-30]
  35. East KA, Reid JL, Rynard VL, Hammond D. Trends and patterns of tobacco and nicotine product use among youth in Canada, England, and the United States from 2017 to 2019. J Adolesc Health 2021;69(3):447-456. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Tarasenko Y, Ciobanu A, Fayokun R, Lebedeva E, Commar A, Mauer-Stender K. Electronic cigarette use among adolescents in 17 European study sites: findings from the Global Youth Tobacco Survey. Eur J Public Health 2022;32(1):126-132 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. Summary results of the Global Youth Tobacco Survey in selected countries of the WHO European Region. World Health Organization. 2020.   URL: https:/​/apps.​​iris/​bitstream/​handle/​10665/​336752/​WHO-EURO-2020-1513-41263-56157-eng.​pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [accessed 2022-01-31]
  38. Wang TW, Gentzke AS, Creamer MR, Cullen KA, Holder-Hayes E, Sawdey MD, et al. Tobacco product use and associated factors among middle and high school students - United States, 2019. MMWR Surveill Summ 2019;68(12):1-22 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Green MJ, Gray L, Sweeting H, Benzeval M. Socioeconomic patterning of vaping by smoking status among UK adults and youth. BMC Public Health 2020;20(1):183 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Dai H, Chaney L, Ellerbeck E, Friggeri R, White N, Catley D. Rural-urban differences in changes and effects of Tobacco 21 in youth e-cigarette use. Pediatrics 2021;147(5):e2020020651. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Yoong SL, Hall A, Turon H, Stockings E, Leonard A, Grady A, et al. Association between electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems with initiation of tobacco use in individuals aged <20 years. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2021;16(9):e0256044 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Besaratinia A, Tommasi S. Vaping epidemic: challenges and opportunities. Cancer Causes Control 2020;31(7):663-667 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Shin YM, Hunt DP, Akwe J. An epidemic supplanted by a pandemic: vaping-related illness and COVID-19. South Med J 2022;115(1):8-12 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Viner RM, Ozer EM, Denny S, Marmot M, Resnick M, Fatusi A, et al. Adolescence and the social determinants of health. Lancet 2012;379(9826):1641-1652. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Sawyer SM, Afifi RA, Bearinger LH, Blakemore S, Dick B, Ezeh AC, et al. Adolescence: a foundation for future health. Lancet 2012;379(9826):1630-1640. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. Steinberg L. A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Dev Rev 2008;28(1):78-106 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Spear LP. Effects of adolescent alcohol consumption on the brain and behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci 2018;19(4):197-214. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Spear HJ, Kulbok P. Autonomy and adolescence: a concept analysis. Public Health Nurs 2004;21(2):144-152. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Degenhardt L, Stockings E, Patton G, Hall WD, Lynskey M. The increasing global health priority of substance use in young people. Lancet Psychiatry 2016;3(3):251-264. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Chatterjee K, Alzghoul B, Innabi A, Meena N. Is vaping a gateway to smoking: a review of the longitudinal studies. Int J Adolesc Med Health 2016;30(3):20160033. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Hammond D, Reid JL, Rynard VL, Fong GT, Cummings KM, McNeill A, et al. Prevalence of vaping and smoking among adolescents in Canada, England, and the United States: repeat national cross sectional surveys. BMJ 2019;365:l2219 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  52. Taher AK, Evans N, Evans CE. The cross-sectional relationships between consumption of takeaway food, eating meals outside the home and diet quality in British adolescents. Public Health Nutr 2019;22(1):63-73. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Murakami K, Livingstone MBE. Decreasing the number of small eating occasions (<15 % of total energy intake) regardless of the time of day may be important to improve diet quality but not adiposity: a cross-sectional study in British children and adolescents. Br J Nutr 2016 Jan 28;115(2):332-341. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Nutrition across the life stages. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2018.   URL: https:/​/www.​​getmedia/​fc5ad42e-08f5-4f9a-9ca4-723cacaa510d/​aihw-phe-227.​pdf.​aspx?inline=true [accessed 2021-10-11]
  55. Poor diet. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2019.   URL: [accessed 2021-10-11]
  56. Padrão P, Lunet N, Santos AC, Barros H. Smoking, alcohol, and dietary choices: evidence from the Portuguese National Health Survey. BMC Public Health 2007;7:138 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Papadopoulou SK, Hassapidou MN, Katsiki N, Fachantidis P, Fachantidou AI, Daskalou E, et al. Relationships between alcohol consumption, smoking status and food habits in Greek adolescents. vascular implications for the future. Curr Vasc Pharmacol 2017;15(2):167-173. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Staff J, Maggs JL, Seto C, Dillavou J, Vuolo M. Electronic and combustible cigarette use in adolescence: links with adjustment, delinquency, and other substance use. J Adolesc Health 2020;66(1):39-47 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Champion KE, Mather M, Spring B, Kay-Lambkin F, Teesson M, Newton NC. Clustering of multiple risk behaviors among a sample of 18-year-old Australians and associations with mental health outcomes: a latent class analysis. Front Public Health 2018;6:135 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  60. Thornton L, Osman B, Champion K, Green O, Wescott AB, Gardner LA, et al. Measurement properties of smartphone approaches to assess diet, alcohol use, and tobacco use: systematic review. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2022;10(2):e27337 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  61. Hoare E, Crooks N, Hayward J, Allender S, Strugnell C. Associations between combined overweight and obesity, lifestyle behavioural risk and quality of life among Australian regional school children: baseline findings of the Goulburn Valley health behaviours monitoring study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2019;17(1):16 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  62. Hoare E, Marx W, Firth J, McLeod S, Jacka F, Chrousos GP, et al. Lifestyle behavioural risk factors and emotional functioning among schoolchildren: The Healthy Growth Study. Eur Psychiatry 2019;61:79-84. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  63. Miller M, Borges G, Orozco R, Mukamal K, Rimm EB, Benjet C, et al. Exposure to alcohol, drugs and tobacco and the risk of subsequent suicidality: findings from the Mexican Adolescent Mental Health Survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011;113(2-3):110-117. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  64. Bleich SN, Vercammen KA. The negative impact of sugar-sweetened beverages on children's health: an update of the literature. BMC Obes 2018;5:6 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  65. Luger M, Lafontan M, Bes-Rastrollo M, Winzer E, Yumuk V, Farpour-Lambert N. Sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain in children and adults: a systematic review from 2013 to 2015 and a comparison with previous studies. Obes Facts 2017;10(6):674-693 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  66. Degenhardt L, Chiu W, Sampson N, Kessler RC, Anthony JC, Angermeyer M, et al. Toward a global view of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and cocaine use: findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. PLoS Med 2008;5(7):e141 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  67. Viner RM, Taylor B. Adult outcomes of binge drinking in adolescence: findings from a UK national birth cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61(10):902-907 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  68. Ding D, Rogers K, van der Ploeg H, Stamatakis E, Bauman AE. Traditional and emerging lifestyle risk behaviors and all-cause mortality in middle-aged and older adults: evidence from a large population-based Australian cohort. PLoS Med 2015;12(12):e1001917 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  69. Loef M, Walach H. The combined effects of healthy lifestyle behaviors on all cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med 2012;55(3):163-170. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. Ezzati M, Riboli E. Behavioral and dietary risk factors for noncommunicable diseases. N Engl J Med 2013;369(10):954-964. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  71. Liu K, Daviglus ML, Loria CM, Colangelo LA, Spring B, Moller AC, et al. Healthy lifestyle through young adulthood and the presence of low cardiovascular disease risk profile in middle age: the Coronary Artery Risk Development in (Young) Adults (CARDIA) study. Circulation 2012;125(8):996-1004 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  72. Champion KE, Parmenter B, McGowan C, Spring B, Wafford QE, Gardner LA, Health4Life team. Effectiveness of school-based eHealth interventions to prevent multiple lifestyle risk behaviours among adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Digit Health 2019;1(5):e206-e221 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  73. Newton NC, Champion KE, Slade T, Chapman C, Stapinski L, Koning I, et al. A systematic review of combined student- and parent-based programs to prevent alcohol and other drug use among adolescents. Drug Alcohol Rev 2017;36(3):337-351. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  74. Elbert NJ, van Os-Medendorp H, van Renselaar W, Ekeland AG, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Raat H, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ehealth interventions in somatic diseases: a systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Med Internet Res 2014;16(4):e110 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  75. Kemp BJ, Thompson DR, Watson CJ, McGuigan K, Woodside JV, Ski CF. Effectiveness of family-based eHealth interventions in cardiovascular disease risk reduction: a systematic review. Prev Med 2021;149:106608. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  76. Hutton A, Prichard I, Whitehead D, Thomas S, Rubin M, Sloand E, et al. mHealth interventions to reduce alcohol use in young people: a systematic review of the literature. Compr Child Adolesc Nurs 2020;43(3):171-202 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  77. Kazemi DM, Li S, Levine MJ, Auten B, Granson M. Systematic review of smartphone apps as a mHealth intervention to address substance abuse in adolescents and adults. J Addict Nurs 2021;32(3):180-187. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  78. Taylor G, Dalili MN, Semwal M, Civljak M, Sheikh A, Car J. Internet-based interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;9:CD007078 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  79. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  80. Adolescent health. World Health Organization.   URL: [accessed 2021-10-11]
  81. Snijder M, Stapinski L, Lees B, Ward J, Conrod P, Mushquash C, et al. Preventing substance use among Indigenous adolescents in the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: a systematic review of the literature. Prev Sci 2020;21(1):65-85 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  82. Debenham J, Birrell L, Champion K, Lees B, Yücel M, Newton N. Neuropsychological and neurophysiological predictors and consequences of cannabis and illicit substance use during neurodevelopment: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2021;5(8):589-604. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  83. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  84. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  85. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336(7650):924-926 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  86. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: a product from the ESRC Methods Programme. University of Lancaster. 2006.   URL: https:/​/www.​​media/​lancaster-university/​content-assets/​documents/​fhm/​dhr/​chir/​NSsynthesisguidanceVersion1-April2006.​pdf [accessed 2022-02-09]

PRISMA-P: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols
SSB: sugar-sweetened beverage

Edited by T Leung; submitted 02.12.21; peer-reviewed by H Ayatollahi, T Ndabu, A Lavoie, P Atorkey; comments to author 12.01.22; revised version received 23.02.22; accepted 26.04.22; published 13.05.22


©Lyra Egan, Lauren Anne Gardner, Nicola Newton, Katrina Champion. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (, 13.05.2022.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.