Taghrid Asfar1, Kristopher L Arheart2, Tulay Koru-Sengul2,3, Margaret M Byrne2,3, Noella A Dietz2,3, Charles Jeng Chen2, David J Lee2,3. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Clinical Research Building, 1120 NW 14th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. tasfar@miami.edu. 2. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Clinical Research Building, 1120 NW 14th Street, Miami, FL, 33136, USA. 3. Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer survivors comprise a vulnerable population for exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). This study examined and compared the prevalence, time trends, and predictors of SHS exposure between nonsmoking adult cancer survivors and nonsmoking adults without cancer history (control group). METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2001-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (survivors: n = 2168; controls: n = 19,436). All adults ≥20 years of age who reported not smoking and had a serum cotinine level of 0.015-10 ng/mL were included in the study. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals, weighted linear regression of prevalence on year for trend analysis, and logistic regression analysis were performed with adjustments made for the complex survey design. RESULTS: Survivors were significantly less likely to be exposed to SHS (65.4 vs. 70.6%, respectively). Exposure over time decreased by 16% (from 67.1% in 2001 to 53.3% in 2012) among survivors and by 24% (from 72% in 2001 to 56% in 2012) among controls. Exposed survivors were more likely to be young (OR = 0.98 [95% CI = 0.97-0.99]), non-Hispanic Black (2.51 [1.49-4.26]), with some college education (2.47 [1.56-3.93]), a high school education (2.72 [1.76-4.19]), less than a high school education (2.49 [1.58-3.91]), and poor (1.80 [1.10-2.96]). CONCLUSION: Considerable numbers of US cancer survivors are exposed to SHS and exposure disparities persist. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: More efforts are needed to develop and test population policies and clinical-based interventions targeting cancer survivors.
PURPOSE:Cancer survivors comprise a vulnerable population for exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS). This study examined and compared the prevalence, time trends, and predictors of SHS exposure between nonsmoking adult cancer survivors and nonsmoking adults without cancer history (control group). METHODS: Data were obtained from the 2001-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (survivors: n = 2168; controls: n = 19,436). All adults ≥20 years of age who reported not smoking and had a serum cotinine level of 0.015-10 ng/mL were included in the study. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals, weighted linear regression of prevalence on year for trend analysis, and logistic regression analysis were performed with adjustments made for the complex survey design. RESULTS: Survivors were significantly less likely to be exposed to SHS (65.4 vs. 70.6%, respectively). Exposure over time decreased by 16% (from 67.1% in 2001 to 53.3% in 2012) among survivors and by 24% (from 72% in 2001 to 56% in 2012) among controls. Exposed survivors were more likely to be young (OR = 0.98 [95% CI = 0.97-0.99]), non-Hispanic Black (2.51 [1.49-4.26]), with some college education (2.47 [1.56-3.93]), a high school education (2.72 [1.76-4.19]), less than a high school education (2.49 [1.58-3.91]), and poor (1.80 [1.10-2.96]). CONCLUSION: Considerable numbers of US cancer survivors are exposed to SHS and exposure disparities persist. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: More efforts are needed to develop and test population policies and clinical-based interventions targeting cancer survivors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer survivors; Exposure to secondhand smoke; Health disparities; Predictors of exposure to SHS; Time-trend analysis
Authors: Vida L Tyc; Leslee Throckmorton-Belzer; James L Klosky; Frances L Greeson; Shelly Lensing; Shesh N Rai; Melissa M Hudson Journal: J Child Health Care Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 1.979
Authors: Vida L Tyc; Shesh N Rai; Shelly Lensing; James L Klosky; Deborah B Stewart; Jami Gattuso Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aidin Kashigar; Steven Habbous; Lawson Eng; Brendan Irish; Eric Bissada; Jonathan Irish; Dale Brown; Ralph Gilbert; Patrick Gullane; Wei Xu; Shao-Hui Huang; Ian Witterick; Jeremy Freeman; Brian O'Sullivan; John Waldron; Geoffrey Liu; David Goldstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ashley H Clawson; Jody S Nicholson; Michael J McDermott; James L Klosky; Vida L Tyc Journal: J Pediatr Health Care Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 1.812
Authors: Karen M Emmons; Rita M Butterfield; Elaine Puleo; Elyse R Park; Ann Mertens; Ellen R Gritz; Maureen Lahti; Fredrick P Li Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 50.717