Mark L Hatzenbuehler1, Katherine M Keyes2, Ava Hamilton2, Deborah S Hasin3. 1. Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA Department of Psychiatry, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe relationships between tobacco-related environments and disparities in smoking by sexual orientation. METHODS: We examined three aspects of state-level tobacco environments, which were derived from the ImpacTeen State Level Tobacco Control Policy and Prevalence Database: (1) tobacco price and tax data and tobacco control funding; (2) tobacco control policies and (3) tobacco prevalence and norms data. This information was linked to individual-level data on sexual orientation, tobacco use and nicotine dependence in Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (N=34 653; 577 LGB respondents), a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of adults in the USA. RESULTS: Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults in states with more restrictive tobacco environments were less likely to have ever smoked (AOR=0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.00) and to currently smoke (AOR=0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) than LGB adults in more permissive tobacco environments. Further, sexual orientation disparities in past and current smoking, as well as in current nicotine dependence, were lower in states with the most restrictive tobacco environments. Results were robust to adjustment for confounders at the individual and state levels. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive state-level tobacco environments are correlates of smoking behaviours among LGB adults in the USA; such environments could potentially reduce social inequalities in smoking based on sexual orientation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: To describe relationships between tobacco-related environments and disparities in smoking by sexual orientation. METHODS: We examined three aspects of state-level tobacco environments, which were derived from the ImpacTeen State Level Tobacco Control Policy and Prevalence Database: (1) tobacco price and tax data and tobacco control funding; (2) tobacco control policies and (3) tobacco prevalence and norms data. This information was linked to individual-level data on sexual orientation, tobacco use and nicotine dependence in Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (N=34 653; 577 LGB respondents), a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey of adults in the USA. RESULTS: Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults in states with more restrictive tobacco environments were less likely to have ever smoked (AOR=0.78, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.00) and to currently smoke (AOR=0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.99) than LGB adults in more permissive tobacco environments. Further, sexual orientation disparities in past and current smoking, as well as in current nicotine dependence, were lower in states with the most restrictive tobacco environments. Results were robust to adjustment for confounders at the individual and state levels. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive state-level tobacco environments are correlates of smoking behaviours among LGB adults in the USA; such environments could potentially reduce social inequalities in smoking based on sexual orientation. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disparities; Priority/Special Populations; Public Policy
Authors: David P Hopkins; Sima Razi; Kimberly D Leeks; Geetika Priya Kalra; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Robin E Soler Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Alan E Hubbard; Jennifer Ahern; Nancy L Fleischer; Mark Van der Laan; Sheri A Lippman; Nicholas Jewell; Tim Bruckner; William A Satariano Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Katherine M Keyes; John E Schulenberg; Patrick M O'Malley; Lloyd D Johnston; Jerald G Bachman; Guohua Li; Deborah Hasin Journal: Addiction Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Patrick Peretti-Watel; Virginie Villes; Xavier Duval; Fidéline Collin; Jacques Reynes; Alain Sobel; Camelia Protopopescu; Geneviève Chêne; Bruno Spire; François Raffi Journal: Curr HIV Res Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 1.581
Authors: Katherine M Keyes; John E Schulenberg; Patrick M O'Malley; Lloyd D Johnston; Jerald G Bachman; Guohua Li; Deborah Hasin Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-12
Authors: Bridget F Grant; Deborah A Dawson; Frederick S Stinson; Patricia S Chou; Ward Kay; Roger Pickering Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2003-07-20 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Sean Esteban McCabe; Tonda L Hughes; Alicia K Matthews; Joseph G L Lee; Brady T West; Carol J Boyd; Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Morgan M Philbin; Pia M Mauro; Julian Santaella-Tenorio; Christine M Mauro; Elizabeth N Kinnard; Magdalena Cerdá; Silvia S Martins Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2019-01-23