Megan E Roberts1, Nathan J Doogan1, Cassandra A Stanton1, Amanda J Quisenberry1, Andrea C Villanti1, Diann E Gaalema1, Diana R Keith1, Allison N Kurti1, Alexa A Lopez1, Ryan Redner1, Antonio Cepeda-Benito1, Stephen T Higgins1. 1. Megan E. Roberts, Nathan J. Doogan, and Amanda J. Quisenberry are with the Center of Excellence in Regulatory Tobacco Science, Ohio State University, Columbus. Cassandra A. Stanton is with Westat, Center for Evaluation and Coordination of Training and Research in Tobacco Regulatory Science, Rockville, MD. Andrea C. Villanti, Diann E. Gaalema, Diana R. Keith, Allison N. Kurti, Alexa A. Lopez, Antonio Cepeda-Benito, and Stephen T. Higgins are with the Vermont Center on Tobacco Regulatory Science, University of Vermont, Burlington. Ryan Redner is with the Rehabilitation Institute, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine urban-rural differences in US prevalences of traditional and emerging tobacco product use as well as dual or polytobacco use of these products. METHODS: Our data were derived from wave 1 (2013-2014) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. We estimated weighted prevalences of adult tobacco use across urban-rural geographies and examined prevalences classified by gender, poverty level, and region of the country. RESULTS: Nationally, cigarette use and smokeless tobacco use, as well as dual or polytobacco use of traditional products, were more prevalent in rural than in urban areas. Conversely, cigarillo and hookah use and dual or polytobacco use of emerging products were higher in urban areas. There was no significant urban-rural difference in use of e-cigarettes. Gender, poverty, and region of the country did not seem to be driving most urban-rural differences, although differences related to cigarillo use and dual or polytobacco use of emerging products became nonsignificant after control for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight important urban-rural differences in tobacco use. Whether the changing tobacco product landscape will contribute to a continuation of rural health disparities remains to be seen.
OBJECTIVES: To examine urban-rural differences in US prevalences of traditional and emerging tobacco product use as well as dual or polytobacco use of these products. METHODS: Our data were derived from wave 1 (2013-2014) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study. We estimated weighted prevalences of adult tobacco use across urban-rural geographies and examined prevalences classified by gender, poverty level, and region of the country. RESULTS: Nationally, cigarette use and smokeless tobacco use, as well as dual or polytobacco use of traditional products, were more prevalent in rural than in urban areas. Conversely, cigarillo and hookah use and dual or polytobacco use of emerging products were higher in urban areas. There was no significant urban-rural difference in use of e-cigarettes. Gender, poverty, and region of the country did not seem to be driving most urban-rural differences, although differences related to cigarillo use and dual or polytobacco use of emerging products became nonsignificant after control for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight important urban-rural differences in tobacco use. Whether the changing tobacco product landscape will contribute to a continuation of rural health disparities remains to be seen.
Authors: Vivek Anand; Kaye L McGinty; Kevin O'Brien; Gregory Guenthner; Ellen Hahn; Catherine A Martin Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: N J Doogan; M E Roberts; M E Wewers; C A Stanton; D R Keith; D E Gaalema; A N Kurti; R Redner; A Cepeda-Benito; J Y Bunn; A A Lopez; S T Higgins Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Karin A Kasza; Bridget K Ambrose; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Kristie Taylor; Maciej L Goniewicz; K Michael Cummings; Eva Sharma; Jennifer L Pearson; Victoria R Green; Annette R Kaufman; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Mark J Travers; Jonathan Kwan; Cindy Tworek; Yu-Ching Cheng; Ling Yang; Nikolas Pharris-Ciurej; Dana M van Bemmel; Cathy L Backinger; Wilson M Compton; Andrew J Hyland Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mary E Northridge; Donna Vallone; Haijun Xiao; Molly Green; Julia Weikle Blackwood; Suzanne E Kemper; Jennifer Duke; Kimberly A Watson; Barri Burrus; Henrie M Treadwell Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
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: Nathan J Doogan; Sarah Cooper; Amanda J Quisenberry; Theodore M Brasky; Christopher R Browning; Elizabeth G Klein; Alice Hinton; Haikady N Nagaraja; Wenna Xi; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Health Place Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Elizabeth A Mumford; Frances A Stillman; Erin Tanenbaum; Nathan J Doogan; M E Roberts; M E Wewers; Devi Chelluri Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Megan E Roberts; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Alice Hinton; Christopher R Browning; Michael D Slater; Wenna Xi; Amy K Ferketich Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 3.913
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
Authors: Stephen T Higgins; Allison N Kurti; Marissa Palmer; Jennifer W Tidey; Antonio Cepeda-Benito; Maria R Cooper; Nicolle M Krebs; Lourdes Baezconde-Garbanati; Joy L Hart; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Prev Med Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Peter F Craigmile; Nathaniel Onnen; Elli Schwartz; Allison Glasser; Megan E Roberts Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-08-21 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Nicholas J Felicione; Jenny E Ozga-Hess; Stuart G Ferguson; Geri Dino; Summer Kuhn; Ilana Haliwa; Melissa D Blank Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 7.552