Elizabeth A Mumford1, Frances A Stillman1, Erin Tanenbaum2, Nathan J Doogan3, M E Roberts4, M E Wewers4, Devi Chelluri2. 1. Public Health Research, NORC at The University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Statistics and Methodology, NORC at The University of Chicago, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. Ohio Colleges of Medicine Government Resource Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 4. Division of Health Behavior & Health Promotion, The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, Ohio.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether there are rural/urban differences in e-cigarette use and reasons for use that vary across the 10 Health & Human Services (HHS) regions. METHODS: Age-adjusted bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted for n = 225,413 respondents to the 2014-2015 Tobacco Use Supplement-Current Population Survey to estimate the prevalence of e-cigarette use. Reasons for e-cigarette use were collected from n = 16,023 self-respondents who reported ever using e-cigarettes. FINDINGS: While nationally rural residents appeared more likely to use e-cigarettes, adjusted results indicated that current e-cigarette use was significantly less likely across the northern and western regions (New England, East North Central, Heartland, North Central Mountain, Northwest, and Southwest Pacific regions). Reasons for e-cigarette use differed by urban/rural status and region; for example, the rationale to use e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid was significantly more common among rural compared to urban adults in the New England and New York/New Jersey regions, but less common in the Southeast. CONCLUSIONS: For several regions, there were no significant rural/urban differences in e-cigarette use and reasons for use. Yet those regions that present differences face the need to develop public health approaches to minimize urban/rural disparities in health education, services, and outcomes related to tobacco use, particularly where access to health care is limited. Public health campaigns and guidance for clinical care within HHS regions should be tailored to reflect regional differences in beliefs about e-cigarettes.
PURPOSE: To determine whether there are rural/urban differences in e-cigarette use and reasons for use that vary across the 10 Health & Human Services (HHS) regions. METHODS: Age-adjusted bivariate and multivariable analyses were conducted for n = 225,413 respondents to the 2014-2015 Tobacco Use Supplement-Current Population Survey to estimate the prevalence of e-cigarette use. Reasons for e-cigarette use were collected from n = 16,023 self-respondents who reported ever using e-cigarettes. FINDINGS: While nationally rural residents appeared more likely to use e-cigarettes, adjusted results indicated that current e-cigarette use was significantly less likely across the northern and western regions (New England, East North Central, Heartland, North Central Mountain, Northwest, and Southwest Pacific regions). Reasons for e-cigarette use differed by urban/rural status and region; for example, the rationale to use e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid was significantly more common among rural compared to urban adults in the New England and New York/New Jersey regions, but less common in the Southeast. CONCLUSIONS: For several regions, there were no significant rural/urban differences in e-cigarette use and reasons for use. Yet those regions that present differences face the need to develop public health approaches to minimize urban/rural disparities in health education, services, and outcomes related to tobacco use, particularly where access to health care is limited. Public health campaigns and guidance for clinical care within HHS regions should be tailored to reflect regional differences in beliefs about e-cigarettes.
Authors: David T Levy; K Michael Cummings; Andrea C Villanti; Ray Niaura; David B Abrams; Geoffrey T Fong; Ron Borland Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-04-25 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Megan E Roberts; Nathan J Doogan; Allison N Kurti; Ryan Redner; Diann E Gaalema; Cassandra A Stanton; Thomas J White; Stephen T Higgins Journal: Health Place Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 4.078
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: Daniel Rodriguez; Heather A Carlos; Anna M Adachi-Mejia; Ethan M Berke; James D Sargent Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Blair N Coleman; Sarah E Johnson; Greta K Tessman; Cindy Tworek; Jennifer Alexander; Denise M Dickinson; Jessica Rath; Kerry M Green Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Electra D Paskett; Katherine B Peters; Janette K Merrill; Jonathan Phillips; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Melissa D Blank; Jenny E Ozga; Katelyn F Romm; Ashley Douglas; Linda Alexander; Nathan J Doogan; Michael Wilson; Geri Dino Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 5.667
Authors: Breanna B Greteman; Crystal J Garcia-Auguste; Brian M Gryzlak; Amanda R Kahl; Susan K Lutgendorf; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Mary E Charlton Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2022-04-24 Impact factor: 5.667