Literature DB >> 31198164

Socioeconomic Differences in Cigarette Smoking Among Sociodemographic Groups.

Bridgette E Garrett1, Brandi N Martell2, Ralph S Caraballo2, Brian A King2.   

Abstract

We examined variations in cigarette smoking by socioeconomic status (education and poverty status) in relation to population sociodemographic characteristics (age, race/ethnicity, region and sex). We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of US adults by using combined data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2011-2014). Low socioeconomic status was generally associated with increased cigarette smoking prevalence by age, race/ethnicity, and region, irrespective of sex. The only exceptions were for Asian and Hispanic women, where low educational attainment was not associated with a high prevalence of cigarette smoking, and among Hispanic men and Asian women, where there was no association between poverty status and smoking. Efforts to reach smokers of low socioeconomic status by using proven tobacco control strategies could reduce disparities in cigarette smoking and smoking-related disease and death.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31198164      PMCID: PMC6583815          DOI: 10.5888/pcd16.180553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis        ISSN: 1545-1151            Impact factor:   2.830


What is already known about this topic?

Socioeconomic disparities in cigarette smoking continue to exist despite progress in reducing cigarette smoking in the general population and among certain demographic groups.

What is added by this report?

Few studies have assessed the extent to which cigarette smoking differs among sociodemographic groups relative to their socioeconomic status. Findings from this report demonstrate that US adults with low socioeconomic status generally have high cigarette smoking prevalence irrespective of the sociodemographic characteristics of the population.

What are the implications for public health practice?

Efforts to reach low socioeconomic smokers with proven tobacco control strategies could reduce disparities in cigarette smoking and smoking-related disease and death.

Objective

Despite progress in reducing cigarette smoking in the general population, socioeconomic (eg, education, income) and sociodemographic characteristics (eg, age, sex, race/ethnicity, US region) of the US population continue to influence cigarette smoking prevalence and associated disparities in cigarette smoking (1). Low socioeconomic status is associated with large disparities in cigarette smoking. (2,3). Because socioeconomic status is a strong determinant of cigarette smoking (2,4), it may also influence sociodemographic disparities in cigarette smoking. Few studies have assessed the extent to which cigarette smoking differs among sociodemographic groups relative to socioeconomic status. We assessed the relationship between socioeconomic status and sociodemographic characteristics as it relates to disparities in cigarette smoking.

Methods

We used data on cigarette smoking from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an annual household survey that collects data on substance use, including tobacco use, from a nationally representative sample of the US noninstitutionalized, civilian population aged 12 or older. The survey design, methods, and general parameters of NSDUH are described elsewhere (5). For this analysis, we combined annual data from NSDUH survey years 2011 to 2014 to obtain sufficient sample sizes to calculate estimates of current cigarette smoking for the assessed sociodemographic and socioeconomic subgroups of adults aged 18 or older (N = 188,673) and adults aged 25 or older (N = 114,759). The average, weighted response rate for NSDUH 2011–2014 was 60.58% for respondents aged 18 or older and 59.67% for respondents aged 25 or older. For our study, current smoking was defined as smoking all or part of a cigarette within the 30 days preceding the interview. Low socioeconomic status was defined as having less than a high school diploma (adults aged ≥25) and living below the poverty threshold (adults aged ≥18), which we calculated as a percentage of the US Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds (federal poverty level). We assessed sociodemographic groups by age (18–24, 25–44, 45–64, and ≥65), race/ethnicity, and US region. Weighted prevalence of current cigarette smoking was computed among men and women by educational attainment and by poverty status. Prevalence estimates were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Differences in prevalence estimates were assessed among men and women by t test between levels of educational attainment and poverty status (P < .05 denoting significance). These analyses were conducted separately by age, by race/ethnicity, and by US region. We used SAS SUDAAN (RTI International) for analyses. Survey weights were used to account for different probabilities of selection and nonresponse.

Results

Cigarette smoking by education. Overall, among both men and women, an inverse significant association between current cigarette smoking and education was observed, with higher smoking prevalence among people with lower educational attainment (Table 1). Current smoking prevalence was 31.6% among people with no high school diploma, 27.5% among those with a high school diploma, 25.1% among those with some college but no bachelor’s degree, and 10.8% among those with a bachelor’s degree.
Table 1

Current Cigarette Use Among US Adults Aged 25 or Older, by Sociodemographic Characteristic and Education Level, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2011–2014a

CharacteristicLess Than High School Diploma [Reference], % (95% CI)High School Diploma, % (95% CI) [P Value]Some College (No Degree), % (95% CI) [P Value]College Graduate, % (95% CI) [P Value]
Overallb 31.6 (30.6–32.7)27.5 (26.8–28.2) [<.001]25.1 (24.4–25.8) [<.001]10.8 (1.4–11.3) [<.001]
Age, y
25–4442.8 (41.2–44.3)37.0 (36.0–38.1) [<.001]31.5 (3.6–32.4) [<.001]14.6 (14.0–15.3) [<.001]
45–6435.0 (33.1–36.9)28.8 (27.6–3.0) [<.001]24.4 (23.3–25.7) [<.001]9.4 (8.6–1.2) [<.001]
≥6512.8 (11.2–14.6)11.3 (1.2–12.5) [.16]11.2 (9.9–12.7) [.17]5.0 (4.1–6.1) [<.001]
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic white41.6 (39.9–43.3)28.8 (28.0–29.6) [<.001]26.2 (25.4–27.1) [<.001]11.3 (1.7–11.8) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic black37.0 (33.9–40.1)29.2 (27.3–31.1) [<.001]25.0 (23.1–27.0) [<.001]8.9 (7.6–1.4) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic Asian12.5 (8.1–18.7)9.8 (7.3–13.2) [.39]14.4 (11.6–17.7) [.53]7.4 (6.1–8.9) [.06]
Hispanic17.2 (15.8–18.7)2.4 (18.7–22.3) [.005]19.9 (18.2–21.8) [.02]12.1 (1.4–14.0) [<.001]
US Census regionc
Northeast31.2 (28.6–34.0)27.0 (25.4–28.6) [.008]25.4 (23.8–27.2) [<.001]11.1 (1.1–12.1) [<.001]
Midwest37.4 (35.2–39.8)3.6 (29.3–31.9) [<.001]27.7 (26.4–29.0) [<.001]11.6 (1.8–12.4) [<.001]
South33.4 (31.7–35.1)28.0 (26.8–29.2) [<.001]25.9 (24.7–27.1) [<.001]11.7 (1.9–12.5) [<.001]
West24.5 (22.6–26.6)23.2 (21.7–24.8) [.29]21.3 (19.8–22.8) [.009]8.9 (8.0–9.9) [<.001]

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center or Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health; surveys for 2011–2014 (8–11).

Overall row includes data on respondents who reported being of more than one racial/ethnic group although these data were excluded from numbers in race/ethnicity categories.

Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center or Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health; surveys for 2011–2014 (8–11). Overall row includes data on respondents who reported being of more than one racial/ethnic group although these data were excluded from numbers in race/ethnicity categories. Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Some sociodemographic differences were observed by age, race/ethnicity, and US region. By age group, smoking was generally highest in the youngest age group (25–44) with less than a high school diploma among both men and women (Table 2). Smoking prevalence was higher among white and black men with or without a high school diploma than among Hispanic adult men with similar educational attainment. Smoking prevalence was higher among adult white and black women with or without a high school diploma than among Asian and Hispanic adult women with similar education. Smoking prevalence was lowest among men and women living in the West, including those with low education levels.
Table 2

Current Cigarette Smoking Among US Adults Aged 25 or Older, by Sex and Education Level, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2011–2014a

CharacteristicMen
Women
Less Than High School Diploma [Reference], % (95% CI)High School Diploma, % (95% CI) [P Value]Some College (No Degree), % (95% CI) [P Value]College Graduate, % (95% CI) [P Value]Less Than High School Diploma [Reference], % (95% CI) [P Value]High School Diploma, % (95% CI) [P Value]Some College (No Degree), % (95% CI) [P Value]College Graduate, % (95% CI) [P Value]
Overallb 36.7 (35.2–38.3)3.7 (29.7–31.7) [<.001]26.8 (25.7–27.9) [<.001]11.7 (11.0–12.4) [<.001]26.3 (24.9–27.8)24.6 (23.7–25.5) [.04]23.7 (22.9–24.6) [<.001]1.1 (9.5–1.6) [<.001]
Age, y
25–4447.6 (45.5–49.8)39.9 (38.4–41.3) [<.001]33.3 (31.8–34.7) [<.001]17.7 (16.7–18.9) [<.001]36.7 (34.5–38.9)33.8 (32.4–35.2) [.02]3.0 (28.8–31.2) [<.001]12.0 (11.3–12.8) [<.001]
45–6438.5 (35.7–41.3)3.0 (28.4–31.8) [<.001]25.5 (23.7–27.5) [<.001]8.8 (7.8–9.9) [<.001]31.1 (28.6–33.7)27.6 (26.1–29.2) [.02]23.5 (22.1–25.0) [<.001]9.9 (8.9–11.1) [<.001]
≥6515.5 (12.8–18.6)13.1 (11.2–15.3) [.17]12.0 (9.7–14.8) [.07]5.5 (4.2–7.2) [<.001]1.7 (8.9–12.8)1.2 (8.9–11.7) [.70]1.7 (9.1–12.5) [.99]4.3 (3.3–5.7) [<.001]
Race/ ethnicity
Non-Hispanic white45.0 (42.7–47.2)31.1 (3.0–32.3) [<.001]26.9 (25.6–28.2) [<.001]11.5 (1.8–12.2) [<.001]37.9 (35.6–4.2)26.6 (25.6–27.7) [<.001]25.7 (24.7–26.8) [<.001]11.1 (1.4–11.8) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic black44.8 (40.1–49.6)35.1 (32.3–38.1) [<.001]28.3 (25.2–31.6) [<.001]9.8 (7.8–12.3) [<.001]29.5 (25.8–33.5)23.8 (21.4–26.3) [.01]22.7 (2.4–25.2) [.004]8.2 (6.6–1.3) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic Asianc c c c 6.0 (3.0–11.8)6.4 (3.8–1.4) [.89]8.6 (6.0–12.3) [.33]3.4 (2.3–5.0) [.25]
Hispanic22.6 (20.3–25.0)25.3 (22.7–28.1) [.13]23.6 (2.7–26.7) [.58]14.0 (11.4–17.0) [<.001]11.8 (1.1–13.7)15.5 (13.3–17.9) [.01]16.6 (14.5–18.9) [<.001]1.3 (8.3–12.6) [.29]
US Census regiond
Northeast35.2 (31.5–39.0)29.6 (27.4–31.9) [.01]26.6 (24.1–29.3) [<.00112.1 (1.8–13.7) [<.001]27.3 (23.8–31.2)24.5 (22.4–26.8) [.20]24.5 (22.4–26.7) [.20]1.0 (8.9–11.4) [<.001]
Midwest42.0 (38.9–45.2)32.8 (31.0–34.6) [<.001]28.4 (26.5–3.4) [<.001]12.1 (1.9–13.4) [<.001]32.2 (29.3–35.3)28.6 (26.9–3.4) [.04]27.2 (25.6–28.8) [.004]11.1 (1.1–12.2) [<.001]
South38.3 (35.9–40.8)31.5 (29.8–33.2) [<.001]28.2 (26.4–3.1) [<.001]12.5 (11.3–13.7) [<.001]28.4 (26.2–3.6)24.8 (23.3–26.3) [.008]24.2 (22.7–25.7) [.002]1.9 (9.9–12.1) [<.001]
West30.9 (27.8–34.2)27.5 (25.2–29.8) [.09]23.6 (21.3–26.0) [<.001]9.9 (8.5–11.4) [<.001]18.0 (15.7–2.6)19.3 (17.5–21.3) [.39]19.2 (17.5–21.0) [.44]8.0 (6.9–9.2) [<.001]

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center or Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health; surveys for 2011–2014 (8–11).

Overall row includes data on respondents who reported being of more than one racial or ethnic group although these data were excluded from numbers in race/ethnicity categories.

Low precision; no estimate reported.

Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center or Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health; surveys for 2011–2014 (8–11). Overall row includes data on respondents who reported being of more than one racial or ethnic group although these data were excluded from numbers in race/ethnicity categories. Low precision; no estimate reported. Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Cigarette smoking by poverty status. Smoking prevalence overall was 41.1% among men with incomes below the federal poverty level and 23.7% among men with incomes at or above the poverty level (Table 3). Prevalence was 32.5% among women with incomes below the federal poverty level and 18.3% among those with incomes at or above the poverty level. Both men and women with incomes below the federal poverty level had a significantly higher smoking prevalence than those who lived at or above the poverty level, except for Asian women and Hispanic men. High smoking prevalence was observed among certain groups of men and women with incomes below the federal poverty level: white men (50.9%), white women (44.8%), black men (44.1%), American Indian/Alaska Native men (53.7%), and American Indian/Alaska Native women (49.0%).
Table 3

Current Cigarette Smoking Among US Adults Aged 18 or Older, By Sociodemographic Characteristics and Poverty Statusa, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2011–2014b

CharacteristicMen
Women
Total
Below, % (95% CI)At or Above, % (95% CI) [P Value]Below, % (95% CI)At or Above, % (95% CI) [P Value]Below, % (95% CI)At or Above, % (95% CI) [P Value]
Overallc 41.1 (39.8–42.5)23.7 (23.2–24.2) [<.001]32.5 (31.4–33.6)18.3 (17.8–18.7) [<.001]36.0 (35.1–36.9)2.9 (2.6–21.3) [<.001]
Age, y
18–2438.9 (37.5–40.3)35.4 (34.6–36.2) [<.001]28.6 (27.6–29.7)24.7 (24.0–25.4) [<.001]33.2 (32.3–34.2)3.3 (29.8–3.9) [<.001]
25–4445.3 (43.2–47.5)3.0 (29.3–3.8) [<.001]35.9 (34.3–37.5)22.2 (21.5–22.8) [<.001]39.6 (38.3–41.0)26.2 (25.6–26.7) [<.001]
45–6443.4 (40.5–46.4)2.7 (19.8–21.6) [<.001]39.2 (36.6–41.9)18.6 (17.8–19.4) [<.001]41.0 (39.0–43.1)19.6 (19.0–2.3) [<.001]
≥6520.4 (14.8–27.4)1.1 (9.1–11.2) [.002]13.5 (1.8–16.8)8.7 (7.9–9.5) [.002]15.7 (13.1–18.8)9.3 (8.6–1.0) [<.001]
Race/ethnicity
Non-Hispanic white50.9 (48.9–52.9)23.7 (23.2–24.3) [<.001]44.8 (43.1–46.5)2.2 (19.7–2.8) [<.001]47.4 (46.1–48.7)22.0 (21.5–22.4) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic black44.1 (41.2–47.1)25.9 (24.3–27.5) [<.001]3.9 (28.6–33.3)15.8 (14.6–17.1) [<.001]35.9 (34.1–37.8)2.6 (19.6–21.7) [<.001]
American Indian/Alaska Native53.7 (43.7–63.4)35.7 (29.1–42.9) [.004]49.0 (4.2–57.8)31.7 (26.1–37.9) [<.001]5.8 (43.6–58.0)33.7 (29.3–38.5) [<.001]
Non-Hispanic Asian24.2 (18.4–31.0)14.5 (12.7–16.6) [.004]7.6 (5.3–1.7)5.7 (4.7–7.0) [.22]15.0 (12.0–18.7)9.8 (8.7–1.9) [.004]
Hispanic25.5 (23.3–27.8)23.5 (22.3–24.8) [.14]16.8 (15.2–18.6)13.1 (12.0–14.2) [<.001]2.4 (19.1–21.8)18.6 (17.8–19.5) [.02]
US Census regiond
Northeast39.6 (36.4–42.9)31.5 (29.8–33.2) [<.001]31.2 (28.6–34.0)18.4 (17.4–19.4) [<.001]34.4 (32.5–36.5)2.4 (19.6–21.2) [<.001]
Midwest49.1 (46.3–51.8)25.5 (24.6–26.4) [<.001]41.3 (39.0–43.7)21.1 (2.4–21.9) [<.001]44.6 (42.8–46.4)23.3 (22.6–23.9) [<.001]
South43.2 (41.0–45.4)25.0 (24.2–25.8) [<.001]32.9 (31.2–34.6)19.1 (18.3–19.9) [<.001]37.1 (35.7–38.5)22.0 (21.4–22.6) [<.001]
West32.3 (29.7–35.0)21.0 (19.9–22.1) [<.001]25.4 (23.4–27.6)14.1 (13.2–15.0) [<.001]28.4 (26.7–3.1)17.5 (16.8–18.3) [<.001]

Household income in relationship to the federal poverty level.

Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center or Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health; surveys for 2011–2014 (8–11).

Overall row includes data on respondents who reported being of more than one racial or ethnic group although these data were excluded from numbers in race/ethnicity categories.

Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Household income in relationship to the federal poverty level. Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center or Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, National Survey on Drug Use and Health; surveys for 2011–2014 (8–11). Overall row includes data on respondents who reported being of more than one racial or ethnic group although these data were excluded from numbers in race/ethnicity categories. Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin; South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia; West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Discussion

Our study showed that low socioeconomic status is generally associated with a high prevalence of cigarette smoking by age, race/ethnicity, and US region. Moreover, these associations were generally consistent across sexes. The only exceptions were for Asian and Hispanic women, where lower education was not associated with higher cigarette smoking, and for Hispanic men and Asian women, where we saw no differences by poverty status. Because both sociodemographic characteristics and socioeconomic status can influence cigarette smoking behavior (2,4), an understanding is needed of how these factors contribute to cigarette smoking disparities and associated health outcomes. For example, cigarette smoking among American Indian/Alaska Native men who lived at or above the federal poverty level was higher than among white men who lived at or above the poverty level (35.7% vs 23.7%). However, prevalence was similar among both groups who lived below the poverty level. Although an educational gradient in smoking was observed among Hispanic men, no differences were observed among them by poverty level. These findings are consistent with previous research showing that income gradients in cigarette smoking are observed primarily among non-Hispanic whites and blacks, but are less evident among Hispanics (2,6,7). This study had limitations. Data were self-reported and were not biochemically validated. Because of small sample sizes for certain subgroups, such as American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asian men by educational attainment, estimates were not reported for these groups. Finally, this study only included persons in aggregate racial/ethnic populations, that is, cigarette smoking prevalence among subgroups of the broader racial/ethnic population categories were not reported. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate that US adults with low socioeconomic status generally have high prevalence of cigarette smoking in relationship to various sociodemographic characteristics, irrespective of sex. Because disparities in tobacco use involve a complex interplay of demographic, social, and economic factors across the life course, comprehensive tobacco control efforts that consider social and economic contexts are important to advance progress in reducing cigarette smoking in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.
  5 in total

Review 1.  Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review.

Authors:  Rosemary Hiscock; Linda Bauld; Amanda Amos; Jennifer A Fidler; Marcus Munafò
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2011-11-17       Impact factor: 5.691

2.  Socioeconomic disparities in tobacco-related health outcomes across racial/ethnic groups in the United States: National Health Interview Survey 2010.

Authors:  Claire Margerison-Zilko; Catherine Cubbin
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 4.244

3.  Smoking by blacks and whites: socioeconomic and demographic differences.

Authors:  T E Novotny; K E Warner; J S Kendrick; P L Remington
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 4.  Addressing the Social Determinants of Health to Reduce Tobacco-Related Disparities.

Authors:  Bridgette E Garrett; Shanta R Dube; Stephen Babb; Tim McAfee
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 4.244

5.  Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults - United States, 2016.

Authors:  Ahmed Jamal; Elyse Phillips; Andrea S Gentzke; David M Homa; Stephen D Babb; Brian A King; Linda J Neff
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2018-01-19       Impact factor: 17.586

  5 in total
  16 in total

1.  Predicting Chronic Stress among Healthy Females Using Daily-Life Physiological and Lifestyle Features from Wearable Sensors.

Authors:  Noa Magal; Sharona L Rab; Pavel Goldstein; Lisa Simon; Talita Jiryis; Roee Admon
Journal:  Chronic Stress (Thousand Oaks)       Date:  2022-07-25

2.  Sex Differences in Temporal Trends of Cardiovascular Health in Young US Adults.

Authors:  So Mi Jemma Cho; Sara Haidermota; Michael C Honigberg; Pradeep Natarajan
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 6.106

3.  A Lung Cancer Screening Education Program Impacts both Referral Rates and Provider and Medical Assistant Knowledge at Two Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Authors:  Aamna Akhtar; Ernesto Sosa; Samuel Castro; Melissa Sur; Vanessa Lozano; Gail D'Souza; Sophia Yeung; Jonjon Macalintal; Meghna Patel; Xiaoke Zou; Pei-Chi Wu; Ellen Silver; Jossie Sandoval; Stacy W Gray; Karen L Reckamp; Jae Y Kim; Virginia Sun; Dan J Raz; Loretta Erhunmwunsee
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2021-12-12       Impact factor: 4.840

4.  Social mobility and healthy behaviours from a gender perspective in the Spanish multicase-control study (MCC-Spain).

Authors:  M Pinto-Carbó; R Peiró-Pérez; A Molina-Barceló; M Vanaclocha-Espi; J Alguacil; G Castaño-Vinyals; C O'Callaghan-Gordo; E Gràcia-Lavedan; B Pérez-Gómez; V Lope; N Aragonés; A J Molina; T Fernández-Villa; L Gil-Majuelo; P Amiano; T Dierssen-Sotos; I Gómez-Acebo; M Guevara; C Moreno-Iribas; M Obón-Santacana; M M Rodríguez-Suárez; I Salcedo-Bellido; A Delgado-Parrilla; R Marcos-Gragera; M D Chirlaque; M Kogevinas; M Pollán; D Salas
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Evaluating a Tobacco Treatment Program's Transition to Telehealth Using a Social Determinants of Health Lens.

Authors:  Kimberly A Shoenbill; Michael H Baca-Atlas; Caleb A Smith; Stephanie B Wilhoit-Reeves; Stefani N Baca-Atlas; Adam O Goldstein
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 5.825

6.  How Much Progress Have We Made? Trends in Disparities in Tobacco Use.

Authors:  J H Kingsbury; J D'Silva; E O'Gara; M J Parks; R G Boyle
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 2.830

7.  The Effect of Smoking on Salivary Calcium Levels, Calcium Intake, and Bleeding on Probing in Female.

Authors:  Sri Tjahajawati; Anggun Rafisa; Endah Ayu Lestari
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2021-12-18

8.  Cumulative vulnerabilities as a potential moderator of response to reduced nicotine content cigarettes.

Authors:  Stephen T Higgins; Michael DeSarno; Janice Y Bunn; Diann E Gaalema; Adam M Leventhal; Danielle R Davis; Joanna M Streck; Roxanne F Harfmann; Catherine Markesich; Eva Orr; Stacey C Sigmon; Sarah H Heil; Jennifer W Tidey; Dustin Lee; John R Hughes
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 4.637

9.  Individual Capital Structure and Health Behaviors among Chinese Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis Using Bourdieu's Theory of Capitals.

Authors:  Peng Xu; Junfeng Jiang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  Epidemiological Trends of Head and Neck Cancer: A Population-Based Study.

Authors:  Kangwen Guo; Weiliang Xiao; Xinggui Chen; Zhenying Zhao; Yuanxiong Lin; Ge Chen
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.