Evan A Krueger1, Jessica L Braymiller2, Jessica L Barrington-Trimis2, Junhan Cho2, Rob S McConnell2, Adam M Leventhal3. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California. 2001 N. Soto St., Los Angeles, CA, 90032, United States. Electronic address: eakruege@usc.edu. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California. 2001 N. Soto St., Los Angeles, CA, 90032, United States. 3. Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California. 2001 N. Soto St., Los Angeles, CA, 90032, United States; Department of Psychology, University of Southern California. 3620 McClintock Ave., Los Angeles, CA, 90089, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual minority (SM; e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual) youth are disproportionately more likely to use tobacco than non-SM youth, yet there exist several critical gaps in knowledge. This study assessed (a) the timing of SM tobacco use disparities (e.g., during adolescence or early adulthood), (b) whether disparities generalize across different tobacco products, and (c) whether disparities differ by sex. METHODS: Data were from a 6-year prospective cohort of diverse high school students from Southern California who were followed into early adulthood (9 waves, 2013-2019). SM (vs. non-SM) differences in past 6-month use were assessed for: any tobacco products, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, other products (e.g., hookah), and multiple products. Disparities were modeled longitudinally across adolescence (high school) and the transition to early adulthood (end of high school to post-high school). Differences were tested by sex. RESULTS: Among females, SM disparities were evident for all outcomes during both adolescence and early adulthood; no differences were observed among males. For example, SM (vs. non-SM) females had higher odds of cigarette (aOR = 4.4 [3.0-6.5]) and e-cigarette (aOR = 1.7 [1.2-2.4]) use, averaged across adolescence. The timing of disparities varied by product. For example, cigarette use disparities emerged prior to high school and persisted through adolescence and young adulthood, while e-cigarette use disparities were present in early adolescence and young adulthood only. CONCLUSIONS: Young SM females are at especially high risk for tobacco use, across various tobacco products, throughout adolescence and young adulthood. Interventions must consider differences in the timing of disparities by product type.
INTRODUCTION: Sexual minority (SM; e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual) youth are disproportionately more likely to use tobacco than non-SM youth, yet there exist several critical gaps in knowledge. This study assessed (a) the timing of SM tobacco use disparities (e.g., during adolescence or early adulthood), (b) whether disparities generalize across different tobacco products, and (c) whether disparities differ by sex. METHODS: Data were from a 6-year prospective cohort of diverse high school students from Southern California who were followed into early adulthood (9 waves, 2013-2019). SM (vs. non-SM) differences in past 6-month use were assessed for: any tobacco products, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, other products (e.g., hookah), and multiple products. Disparities were modeled longitudinally across adolescence (high school) and the transition to early adulthood (end of high school to post-high school). Differences were tested by sex. RESULTS: Among females, SM disparities were evident for all outcomes during both adolescence and early adulthood; no differences were observed among males. For example, SM (vs. non-SM) females had higher odds of cigarette (aOR = 4.4 [3.0-6.5]) and e-cigarette (aOR = 1.7 [1.2-2.4]) use, averaged across adolescence. The timing of disparities varied by product. For example, cigarette use disparities emerged prior to high school and persisted through adolescence and young adulthood, while e-cigarette use disparities were present in early adolescence and young adulthood only. CONCLUSIONS: Young SM females are at especially high risk for tobacco use, across various tobacco products, throughout adolescence and young adulthood. Interventions must consider differences in the timing of disparities by product type.
Authors: Jennifer L Pearson; Amanda Richardson; Raymond S Niaura; Donna M Vallone; David B Abrams Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jeffrey Drope; Alex C Liber; Zachary Cahn; Michal Stoklosa; Rosemary Kennedy; Clifford E Douglas; Rosemarie Henson; Jacqui Drope Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Kristen Emory; Francisco O Buchting; Dennis R Trinidad; Lisa Vera; Sherry L Emery Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-03-30 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Donghee N Lee; Elise M Stevens; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Amelia V Wedel; Theodore L Wagener; Joanne G Patterson Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2022-04-06
Authors: Katelyn F Romm; David M Huebner; Mandi L Pratt-Chapman; Carlos E Rodriguez-Diaz; Yan Wang; Yan Ma; Carla J Berg Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2022 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Joanne G Patterson; Brittney Keller-Hamilton; Amelia V Wedel; Theodore L Wagener; Elise M Stevens Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 4.852