Paul T Harrell1, Syeda Mahrukh Hussnain Naqvi2, Andrew D Plunk1, Ming Ji2, Silvia S Martins3. 1. a Department of Pediatrics, Eastern Virginia Medical School , Norfolk , VA , USA. 2. b Department of Statistics/Biostatistics, College of Nursing , University of South Florida , Tampa , FL , USA. 3. c Department of Epidemiology , Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health , New York , NY , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite significant declines in youth cigarette smoking, overall tobacco usage remains over 20% as non-cigarette tobacco product usage is increasingly common and polytobacco use (using 1+ tobacco product) remains steady. OBJECTIVES: The present study was designed to identify patterns of youth tobacco use and examine associations with sociodemographic characteristics and tobacco dependence. METHODS: The current analysis uses Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to examine the 6,958 tobacco users (n = 2,738 female) in the National Youth Tobacco Survey (2012 and 2013). We used as indicators past month use of tobacco products (cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, hookah, snus, pipes, bidis, and kreteks) and regressed resulting classes on sociodemographic characteristics and tobacco dependence. RESULTS: Nine classes emerged: cigarette smokers (33.4% of sample, also included small probabilities for use of cigars and e-cigarettes), cigar smokers (16.8%, nearly exclusive), smokeless tobacco users (12.3%, also included small probabilities for cigarettes, cigars, snus), hookah smokers (11.8%), tobacco smokers/chewers (10.7%, variety of primarily traditional tobacco products), tobacco/hookah smokers (7.2%), tobacco/snus/e-cig users (3.3%), e-cigarette users (2.9%,), and polytobacco users (1.7%, high probabilities for all products). Compared to cigarette smokers, tobacco/hookah smokers and hookah smokers were more likely to report Hispanic ethnicity. Polytobacco users were more likely to report dependence (AOR:2.77, 95% CI:[1.49-5.18]), whereas e-cigarette users were less likely (AOR:0.49, 95% CI:[0.24-0.97]). CONCLUSION: Findings are consistent with other research demonstrating shifts in adolescent tobacco product usage towards non-cigarette tobacco products. Continuous monitoring of these patterns is needed to help predict if this shift will ultimately result in improved public health.
BACKGROUND: Despite significant declines in youth cigarette smoking, overall tobacco usage remains over 20% as non-cigarette tobacco product usage is increasingly common and polytobacco use (using 1+ tobacco product) remains steady. OBJECTIVES: The present study was designed to identify patterns of youth tobacco use and examine associations with sociodemographic characteristics and tobacco dependence. METHODS: The current analysis uses Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to examine the 6,958 tobacco users (n = 2,738 female) in the National Youth Tobacco Survey (2012 and 2013). We used as indicators past month use of tobacco products (cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, e-cigarettes, hookah, snus, pipes, bidis, and kreteks) and regressed resulting classes on sociodemographic characteristics and tobacco dependence. RESULTS:Nine classes emerged: cigarette smokers (33.4% of sample, also included small probabilities for use of cigars and e-cigarettes), cigar smokers (16.8%, nearly exclusive), smokeless tobacco users (12.3%, also included small probabilities for cigarettes, cigars, snus), hookah smokers (11.8%), tobacco smokers/chewers (10.7%, variety of primarily traditional tobacco products), tobacco/hookah smokers (7.2%), tobacco/snus/e-cig users (3.3%), e-cigarette users (2.9%,), and polytobacco users (1.7%, high probabilities for all products). Compared to cigarette smokers, tobacco/hookah smokers and hookah smokers were more likely to report Hispanic ethnicity. Polytobacco users were more likely to report dependence (AOR:2.77, 95% CI:[1.49-5.18]), whereas e-cigarette users were less likely (AOR:0.49, 95% CI:[0.24-0.97]). CONCLUSION: Findings are consistent with other research demonstrating shifts in adolescent tobacco product usage towards non-cigarette tobacco products. Continuous monitoring of these patterns is needed to help predict if this shift will ultimately result in improved public health.
Authors: Arpana Agrawal; Michael T Lynskey; Pamela A F Madden; Kathleen K Bucholz; Andrew C Heath Journal: Addiction Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Jennifer Cantrell; Jennifer M Kreslake; Ollie Ganz; Jennifer L Pearson; Donna Vallone; Andrew Anesetti-Rothermel; Haijun Xiao; Thomas R Kirchner Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: William S John; He Zhu; Paolo Mannelli; Geetha A Subramaniam; Robert P Schwartz; Jennifer McNeely; Li-Tzy Wu Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 4.492
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: Adriana Pérez; Arnold E Kuk; Meagan A Bluestein; Melissa B Harrell; Cheryl L Perry; Baojiang Chen Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.913
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: Mariel S Bello; Rubin Khoddam; Matthew D Stone; Junhan Cho; Yoewon Yoon; Jungeun Olivia Lee; Adam M Leventhal Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2018-11-28
Authors: Marushka L Silveira; Victoria R Green; Robert Iannaccone; Heather L Kimmel; Kevin P Conway Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 6.526