| Literature DB >> 34025844 |
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Waterpipe smoking is gaining popularity among the youth in Poland and is evaluated for the first time in this work. The authors address the social and demographic factors that motivate young people to smoke and attempt to determine which of them contribute to habit formation.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; tobacco smoke; waterpipe smokers
Year: 2019 PMID: 34025844 PMCID: PMC8130471 DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2019.84487
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Med Sci ISSN: 1734-1922 Impact factor: 3.318
Figure 1Distribution of tobacco products taken by two groups (school and university students) of young people (n = 19,097). The numbers in parentheses give the weighted value
Sociodemographic data of waterpipe users; odds ratios and confidence intervals (CI) from logistic regression. The numbers in parentheses given in the columns for the ever and the current waterpipe smokers present the percentage of smokers calculated in relation to the appropriate group
| Sociodemographic data | Whole sample, | Waterpipe – ever, | Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) | Waterpipe – past 30 days, | Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||||
| 15–19 years (school) | 84.7 | 81.8 (37.5) | Reference | 89.2 (24.0) | Reference |
| 20–25 years (university) | 15.2 | 18.2 (46.3) | 1.31 (1.18–1.45) | 10.8 (16.1) | 0.60 (0.53–0.69) |
| Gender: | |||||
| Female | 54.9 | 43.6 (30.9) | Reference | 38.7 (16.1) | Reference |
| Male | 42.3 | 53.0 (48.7) | 2.22 (2.08–2.36) | 57.5 (31.0) | 2.27 (2.11–2.44) |
| Area of living: | |||||
| Rural | 40.4 | 28.6 (27.5) | Reference | 29.8 (16.8) | Reference |
| Urban | 59.6 | 71.4 (46.6) | 2.23 (2.09–2.38) | 70.2 (26.8) | 1.85 (1.72–2.00) |
| Living with parents: | |||||
| No | 14.4 | 17.1 (45.9) | Reference | 12.2 (19.3) | Reference |
| Yes | 85.2 | 82.5 (37.6) | 0.76 (0.68–0.84) | 87.4 (23.4) | 0.89 (0.79–1.01) |
| Parents smoking: | |||||
| No | 47.8 | 45.3 (36.8) | Reference | 42.8 (23.4) | Reference |
| Yes | 50.6 | 53.3 (40.9) | 1.22 (1.15–1.30) | 55.4 (25.0) | 1.28 (1.20–1.38) |
Not statistically significant
weighted values.
Figure 2The percentage use of other drugs for the group of school (A group) and university students (B group), smoking marihuana in a waterpipe
Perception of tobacco smoking, odds ratios, and confident intervals from logistic regression
| Characteristics | Whole sample, | Waterpipe – ever, | Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) | Waterpipe – past 30 days, | Adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do you think that WTS is less harmful than cigarette smoking? | |||||
| No | 19.0 | 18.8 | Reference | 18.3 | Reference |
| Yes | 36.3 | 57.6 | 2.90 (2.66–3.16) | 60.9 | 2.34 (2.13–2.57) |
| Don’t know | 42.9 | 22.4 | 0.63 (0.58–0.69) | 19.7 | 0.59 (0.53–0.66) |
| Do you think that WTS delivers nicotine? | |||||
| No | 11.1 | 15.6 | Reference | 17.4 | Reference |
| Yes | 40.5 | 54.3 | 1.13 (1.02–1.25) | 54.3 | 0.94 (0.85–1.44) |
| Don’t know | 46.8 | 29.1 | 0.46 (0.42–0.52) | 27.3 | 0.47 (0.42–0.53) |
| Does WTS affect your mood during a party? | |||||
| No | 69.7 | 54.1 | Reference | 51.1 | Reference |
| Yes | 29.3 | 45.2 | 3.21 (3.00–3.43) | 48.4 | 2.83 (2.63–3.04) |
| Does WTS help you to socialise? | |||||
| No | 79.9 | 72.9 | Reference | 71.9 | Reference |
| Yes | 19.5 | 26.6 | 1.48 (1.36–1.60) | 27.6 | 1.34 (1.24–1.46) |
Not statistically significant, CI – confidence interval.