Sherine El-Toukhy1, Kelvin Choi2. 1. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2. Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD Kelvin.choi@nih.gov.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To examine prevalence and correlates of five mutually exclusive tobacco-use patterns among US youth tobacco users. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of tobacco users (N = 3202, 9-17 years) was classified into five product-use patterns. Weighted multinominal and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine prevalence of product-use patterns by gender, race and ethnicity, and grade level; and associations between product-use patterns and perceived accessibility of tobacco products, exposure and receptivity to pro-tobacco marketing, social benefits of smoking, and tobacco-associated risks. RESULTS: Dual use (ie, use of two product categories) was the most prevalent pattern (30.5%), followed by non-cigarette combustible only (26.7%), polytobacco (ie, use of three product categories; 17.5%), cigarette only (14.9%), and noncombustible only (10.4%) use. Product-use patterns differed by gender, race, and ethnicity. Compared to cigarette only users, dual and polytobacco users were more likely to be exposed to and be receptive to pro-tobacco marketing, and were less likely to acknowledge tobacco-use related risks (Ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Curbing tobacco use warrants research on users of more than one tobacco-product categories according to the risk-continuum categorization. IMPLICATIONS: We present a risk-continuum categorization of product-use patterns among tobacco users not older than 17 years. We classify tobacco users into five mutually exclusive product-use patterns: cigarette only users, non-cigarette combustible only users, noncombustible only users, dual use, and polytobacco use. This categorization overcomes limitations in current literature on tobacco-use patterns, which include exclusion of certain products (eg, e-cigarettes) and product-use patterns (eg, exclusive users of non-cigarette products), and inconsistent classification of tobacco users. It is parsimonious yet complex enough to retain differential characteristics of sub-tobacco users based on number (single, dual, polytobacco) and categories (cigarettes, non-cigarette combustibles, noncombustibles) of tobacco products consumed. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
INTRODUCTION: To examine prevalence and correlates of five mutually exclusive tobacco-use patterns among US youth tobacco users. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of tobacco users (N = 3202, 9-17 years) was classified into five product-use patterns. Weighted multinominal and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine prevalence of product-use patterns by gender, race and ethnicity, and grade level; and associations between product-use patterns and perceived accessibility of tobacco products, exposure and receptivity to pro-tobacco marketing, social benefits of smoking, and tobacco-associated risks. RESULTS: Dual use (ie, use of two product categories) was the most prevalent pattern (30.5%), followed by non-cigarette combustible only (26.7%), polytobacco (ie, use of three product categories; 17.5%), cigarette only (14.9%), and noncombustible only (10.4%) use. Product-use patterns differed by gender, race, and ethnicity. Compared to cigarette only users, dual and polytobacco users were more likely to be exposed to and be receptive to pro-tobacco marketing, and were less likely to acknowledge tobacco-use related risks (Ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Curbing tobacco use warrants research on users of more than one tobacco-product categories according to the risk-continuum categorization. IMPLICATIONS: We present a risk-continuum categorization of product-use patterns among tobacco users not older than 17 years. We classify tobacco users into five mutually exclusive product-use patterns: cigarette only users, non-cigarette combustible only users, noncombustible only users, dual use, and polytobacco use. This categorization overcomes limitations in current literature on tobacco-use patterns, which include exclusion of certain products (eg, e-cigarettes) and product-use patterns (eg, exclusive users of non-cigarette products), and inconsistent classification of tobacco users. It is parsimonious yet complex enough to retain differential characteristics of sub-tobacco users based on number (single, dual, polytobacco) and categories (cigarettes, non-cigarette combustibles, noncombustibles) of tobacco products consumed. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Authors: Michelle L Costa; Joanna E Cohen; Michael O Chaiton; David Ip; Paul McDonald; Roberta Ferrence Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2010-07-02 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: N Gray; J E Henningfield; N L Benowitz; G N Connolly; C Dresler; K Fagerstrom; M J Jarvis; P Boyle Journal: Tob Control Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jessica K Pepper; Paul L Reiter; Annie-Laurie McRee; Linda D Cameron; Melissa B Gilkey; Noel T Brewer Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2012-11-30 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Israel T Agaku; Brian A King; Corinne G Husten; Rebecca Bunnell; Bridget K Ambrose; S Sean Hu; Enver Holder-Hayes; Hannah R Day Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: René A Arrazola; Linda J Neff; Sara M Kennedy; Enver Holder-Hayes; Christopher D Jones Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-11-14 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Baoyun Xia; Benjamin C Blount; Tonya Guillot; Christina Brosius; Yao Li; Dana M Van Bemmel; Heather L Kimmel; Cindy M Chang; Nicolette Borek; Kathryn C Edwards; Charlie Lawrence; Andrew Hyland; Maciej L Goniewicz; Brittany N Pine; Yang Xia; John T Bernert; B Rey De Castro; John Lee; Justin L Brown; Stephen Arnstein; Diane Choi; Erin L Wade; Dorothy Hatsukami; Gladys Ervies; Angel Cobos; Keegan Nicodemus; Dana Freeman; Stephen S Hecht; Kevin Conway; Lanqing Wang Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kristie A Taylor; Eva Sharma; Kathryn C Edwards; Michael J Halenar; Wendy Kissin; Karin A Kasza; Hannah Day; Gabriella Anic; Lisa D Gardner; Hoda T Hammad; Lynn C Hull; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Jean Limpert; Nicolette Borek; Heather L Kimmel; Wilson M Compton; Andrew Hyland; Cassandra Stanton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jessica L King; David Reboussin; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Kimberly D Wiseman; Kimberly G Wagoner; Erin L Sutfin Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: Eleanor L S Leavens; Ellen Meier; Emma I Brett; Elise M Stevens; Alayna P Tackett; Andrea C Villanti; Theodore L Wagener Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Anuja Majmundar; Jon-Patrick Allem; Tess Boley Cruz; Jennifer B Unger; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 4.244