Jimi Huh1, Adam M Leventhal2. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: jimihuh@usc.edu. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diverse patterns of adolescent use and poly-use of tobacco products other than conventional cigarettes are emerging. Data characterizing common patterns of youth tobacco product use and typical transitions among patterns may inform tobacco control policy and prevention. This study identified common patterns of use and poly-use of five popular tobacco products (i.e., conventional cigarettes, electronic [e-]cigarettes, hookah, blunts, and cigars) and progression among patterns across time among ninth-graders using latent transition analysis (analyses conducted in 2015). METHODS: Data were from a longitudinal cohort study of ninth-grade students enrolled in ten public high schools in California (N=3,304; 46.6% male; 48.3% Hispanic; mean age, 14.58 [SD=0.40] years), involving a baseline (2013) and 6-month follow-up (2014). Past 6-month any use of the five tobacco products was assessed. RESULTS: Poly-use (two or more products) constituted 42% and 50% of tobacco-using teens at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Three common patterns were identified, which reflected successfully greater degrees of low, intermediate, and high diversity of tobacco product use: non-users (baseline prevalence, 0.75; follow-up prevalence, 0.64); e-cigarette/hookah users only (prevalence, 0.21, 0.27); and poly-tobacco product users of all five products (prevalence, 0.04, 0.09). Most typical transitions involved progressing to the next more diverse pattern (non-user→e-cigarette/hookah user [probability=0.13] and e-cigarette/hookah user→poly-tobacco product user [probability=0.19]). Transition from one of the user patterns to non-user status was rare (probability≤0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent poly-tobacco use is common. E-cigarette and hookah use may reflect an intermediate pattern of tobacco product use progression along a continuum of poly-product use diversity.
INTRODUCTION: Diverse patterns of adolescent use and poly-use of tobacco products other than conventional cigarettes are emerging. Data characterizing common patterns of youth tobacco product use and typical transitions among patterns may inform tobacco control policy and prevention. This study identified common patterns of use and poly-use of five popular tobacco products (i.e., conventional cigarettes, electronic [e-]cigarettes, hookah, blunts, and cigars) and progression among patterns across time among ninth-graders using latent transition analysis (analyses conducted in 2015). METHODS: Data were from a longitudinal cohort study of ninth-grade students enrolled in ten public high schools in California (N=3,304; 46.6% male; 48.3% Hispanic; mean age, 14.58 [SD=0.40] years), involving a baseline (2013) and 6-month follow-up (2014). Past 6-month any use of the five tobacco products was assessed. RESULTS:Poly-use (two or more products) constituted 42% and 50% of tobacco-using teens at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Three common patterns were identified, which reflected successfully greater degrees of low, intermediate, and high diversity of tobacco product use: non-users (baseline prevalence, 0.75; follow-up prevalence, 0.64); e-cigarette/hookah users only (prevalence, 0.21, 0.27); and poly-tobacco product users of all five products (prevalence, 0.04, 0.09). Most typical transitions involved progressing to the next more diverse pattern (non-user→e-cigarette/hookah user [probability=0.13] and e-cigarette/hookah user→poly-tobacco product user [probability=0.19]). Transition from one of the user patterns to non-user status was rare (probability≤0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent poly-tobacco use is common. E-cigarette and hookah use may reflect an intermediate pattern of tobacco product use progression along a continuum of poly-product use diversity.
Authors: Brian A Primack; Ariel Shensa; Kevin H Kim; Mary V Carroll; Mary T Hoban; E Victor Leino; Thomas Eissenberg; Kathleen H Dachille; Michael J Fine Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-05-28 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Adam M Leventhal; David R Strong; Matthew G Kirkpatrick; Jennifer B Unger; Steve Sussman; Nathaniel R Riggs; Matthew D Stone; Rubin Khoddam; Jonathan M Samet; Janet Audrain-McGovern Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-08-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Deepa R Camenga; Grace Kong; Dana A Cavallo; Amanda Liss; Andrew Hyland; Jennifer Delmerico; K Michael Cummings; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: René A Arrazola; Tushar Singh; Catherine G Corey; Corinne G Husten; Linda J Neff; Benjamin J Apelberg; Rebecca E Bunnell; Conrad J Choiniere; Brian A King; Shanna Cox; Tim McAfee; Ralph S Caraballo Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Patricia Simon; Deepa R Camenga; Grace Kong; Christian M Connell; Meghan E Morean; Dana A Cavallo; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2017-01-01
Authors: David B Abrams; Allison M Glasser; Andrea C Villanti; Jennifer L Pearson; Shyanika Rose; Raymond S Niaura Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-06-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Grace Kong; MeLisa R Creamer; Patricia Simon; Dana A Cavallo; Jennifer Cornacchione Ross; Josephine T Hinds; Howard Fishbein; Kevin Gutierrez Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2019-05-04 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; MeLisa R Creamer; Benjamin W Chaffee; Jennifer B Unger; Erin L Sutfin; Grace Kong; Ce Shang; Stephanie L Clendennen; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Philip Veliz; Andria Eisman; Sean Esteban McCabe; Rebecca Evans-Polce; Vita V McCabe; Carol J Boyd Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 5.012