Xiaoyin Li1, Alexandra Loukas2, Cheryl L Perry3. 1. Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. Electronic address: lixiaoyin@utexas.edu. 2. Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA. Electronic address: alexandra.loukas@austin.utexas.edu. 3. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health in Austin, Austin, TX, USA. Electronic address: Cheryl.L.Perry@uth.tmc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Concurrent use of cigarettes with alternative tobacco products (ATPs), even among very light smokers, may be harmful. This study examined current use of e-cigarettes, cigars, and hookah, and susceptibility to future use of these products in a sample of college student cigarette smokers. METHODS: Participants were 1161 18-29 year old (M age = 21.15; SD = 2.72; 52.7% female; 41.2% non-Hispanic white) current, or past 30-day cigarette smokers, drawn from a larger study. Current smokers were categorized as very light smokers [≤5 cigarettes per day (cpd)] and heavier smokers (>5 cpd). RESULTS: 88.6% of all participating college student smokers were very light smokers and 67.7% used at least one ATP concurrently. The prevalence of current use in this sample was 42.9% for e-cigarettes, 36.4% for hookah, and 25.9% for cigars. Compared to heavier smokers, very light smokers were more likely to be younger, racial/ethnic minorities, and four-year versus two-year college students. Multilevel logistic regression models showed that after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and substance use, being a very light smoker, compared with a heavier smoker, was negatively associated with concurrent e-cigarette use, but positively associated with concurrent cigar use, and not associated with concurrent hookah use. Moreover, compared to heavier smokers, very light smokers reported being more susceptible to future cigar and hookah use, but not e-cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent use of cigarettes with ATPs is popular among all college student smokers, but very light smokers are more likely than heavier smokers to use combustible ATPs. Smoking intervention programs and campus policies should caution smokers, especially very light smokers, against ATP use.
INTRODUCTION: Concurrent use of cigarettes with alternative tobacco products (ATPs), even among very light smokers, may be harmful. This study examined current use of e-cigarettes, cigars, and hookah, and susceptibility to future use of these products in a sample of college student cigarette smokers. METHODS:Participants were 1161 18-29 year old (M age = 21.15; SD = 2.72; 52.7% female; 41.2% non-Hispanic white) current, or past 30-day cigarette smokers, drawn from a larger study. Current smokers were categorized as very light smokers [≤5 cigarettes per day (cpd)] and heavier smokers (>5 cpd). RESULTS: 88.6% of all participating college student smokers were very light smokers and 67.7% used at least one ATP concurrently. The prevalence of current use in this sample was 42.9% for e-cigarettes, 36.4% for hookah, and 25.9% for cigars. Compared to heavier smokers, very light smokers were more likely to be younger, racial/ethnic minorities, and four-year versus two-year college students. Multilevel logistic regression models showed that after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics and substance use, being a very light smoker, compared with a heavier smoker, was negatively associated with concurrent e-cigarette use, but positively associated with concurrent cigar use, and not associated with concurrent hookah use. Moreover, compared to heavier smokers, very light smokers reported being more susceptible to future cigar and hookah use, but not e-cigarette use. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent use of cigarettes with ATPs is popular among all college student smokers, but very light smokers are more likely than heavier smokers to use combustible ATPs. Smoking intervention programs and campus policies should caution smokers, especially very light smokers, against ATP use.
Authors: F Baker; S R Ainsworth; J T Dye; C Crammer; M J Thun; D Hoffmann; J L Repace; J E Henningfield; J Slade; J Pinney; T Shanks; D M Burns; G N Connolly; D R Shopland Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-08-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian V Fix; Richard J O'Connor; Lisa Vogl; Danielle Smith; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Kevin P Conway; Bridget Ambrose; Ling Yang; Andrew Hyland Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2013-12-29 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Amanda Richardson; Jennifer Pearson; Haijun Xiao; Carolyn Stalgaitis; Donna Vallone Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Erin L Sutfin; Thomas P McCoy; Holly E R Morrell; Bettina B Hoeppner; Mark Wolfson Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 4.492
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: 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: Alicia K Matthews; Marcus Murray; Josef Ben Levi; David Odell; Rohan Jeremiah; LeAndre Moore; Damilola Oyaluade; Alexis Chappel; Larisa Burke; Karriem Watson Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2022 May-Jun
Authors: Jeremy E Drehmer; Man Luo; Emara Nabi-Burza; Bethany Hipple Walters; Jonathan P Winickoff Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2020-10-07 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Emily S Wan; Spyridon Fortis; Elizabeth A Regan; John Hokanson; MeiLan K Han; Richard Casaburi; Barry J Make; James D Crapo; Dawn L DeMeo; Edwin K Silverman Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 30.528