Erika S Trapl1, Sarah J Koopman Gonzalez2, Craig S Fryer3. 1. Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7069, United States. Electronic address: Erika.Trapl@case.edu. 2. Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7069, United States. Electronic address: Sarah.Koopman@case.edu. 3. Maryland Center for Health Equity, Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland, 4200 Valley Drive, 1234X SPH Building, College Park, MD, 20742, United States. Electronic address: csfryer@umd.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how adolescents who smoke both cigarettes and cigar products obtain and use these products. This study sought to explore cigarette and cigar acquisition and situational use among high school smokers. METHODS: Data are drawn from the 2011 Cuyahoga County Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Analysis was limited to youth who smoke cigarettes as well as cigars, cigarillos, and little cigars (CCLC) in the past month (N = 649). Consumption of both products was calculated and used to create four subtypes of users based on high or low use of each product (Dual High, Dual Low, High CCLC/Low Cigarette, and Low CCLC/High Cigarette users). Current users were asked to identify situations in which they use cigarettes and CCLCs and ways in which they obtain these products. Data were analyzed overall and by user subtype. RESULTS: Youth reported acquiring cigarettes and CCLC in similar ways, although youth were more likely to take cigarettes from family members than CCLC (11.1% vs. 4.8%). Several differences were observed between cigarettes and CCLC for situational use. While both products are frequently used in social situations (e.g., with friends), cigarettes were more likely to be used in solitary situations (e.g., before bed). Further, significant differences were observed among the four user subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Study results highlight important, nuanced differences regarding how young multi-tobacco users obtain and the situational use of such products. Importantly, these findings vary by user subtype, informing future interventions to prevent and reduce smoking among the most vulnerable subgroups of youth.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how adolescents who smoke both cigarettes and cigar products obtain and use these products. This study sought to explore cigarette and cigar acquisition and situational use among high school smokers. METHODS: Data are drawn from the 2011 Cuyahoga County Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Analysis was limited to youth who smoke cigarettes as well as cigars, cigarillos, and little cigars (CCLC) in the past month (N = 649). Consumption of both products was calculated and used to create four subtypes of users based on high or low use of each product (Dual High, Dual Low, High CCLC/Low Cigarette, and Low CCLC/High Cigarette users). Current users were asked to identify situations in which they use cigarettes and CCLCs and ways in which they obtain these products. Data were analyzed overall and by user subtype. RESULTS: Youth reported acquiring cigarettes and CCLC in similar ways, although youth were more likely to take cigarettes from family members than CCLC (11.1% vs. 4.8%). Several differences were observed between cigarettes and CCLC for situational use. While both products are frequently used in social situations (e.g., with friends), cigarettes were more likely to be used in solitary situations (e.g., before bed). Further, significant differences were observed among the four user subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Study results highlight important, nuanced differences regarding how young multi-tobacco users obtain and the situational use of such products. Importantly, these findings vary by user subtype, informing future interventions to prevent and reduce smoking among the most vulnerable subgroups of youth.
Authors: G Hahn; V L Charlin; S Sussman; C W Dent; J Manzi; A W Stacy; B Flay; W B Hansen; D Burton Journal: Addict Behav Date: 1990 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Catherine G Corey; Shanta R Dube; Bridget K Ambrose; Brian A King; Benjamin J Apelberg; Corinne G Husten Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 5.043
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: Michelle C Acosta; Thomas Eissenberg; Mimi Nichter; Mark Nichter; Robert L Balster Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2007-09-08 Impact factor: 3.913