30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      State-Specific Patterns of Cigarette Smoking, Smokeless Tobacco Use, and E-Cigarette Use Among Adults — United States, 2016

      research-article
      , MD, DrPH 1 , , , PhD, MPH 1 , , PhD, MS 1 , , MPH 1 , , MPH 1 , , MS 2 , , PhD 1
      Preventing Chronic Disease
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          State-level monitoring of changes in tobacco product use can help inform tobacco control policy and practice. This study examined state-specific prevalence of cigarette, smokeless tobacco, and e-cigarette use among US adults.

          Methods

          Data came from the 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), a state-based telephone survey of US adults aged 18 years or older (N = 477,665). Prevalence estimates for current (every day or some days) cigarette smoking, smokeless tobacco use, and e-cigarette use were calculated for all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC) and stratified by sex and race/ethnicity. Because the 2016 BRFSS measured e-cigarette use for the first time, estimates of ever e-cigarette use and concurrent use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes were also calculated. We assessed subgroup differences with χ 2 tests.

          Results

          In 2016, prevalence of current cigarette smoking among US adults ranged from 8.8% (Utah) to 24.8% (West Virginia), while prevalence of current smokeless tobacco use ranged from 1.3% (DC) to 9.8% (Wyoming). For e-cigarettes, ever use ranged from 16.2% (DC) to 28.4% (Arkansas), and current use ranged from 2.4% (DC) to 6.7% (Oklahoma). Across all states, current e-cigarette use was significantly higher among current cigarette smokers than among former or never cigarette smokers. States with the highest prevalence of cigarette smoking generally had a high prevalence of current e-cigarette use.

          Conclusion

          Prevalence of adult cigarette smoking, smokeless tobacco use, and e-cigarette use varies across states. These findings underscore the importance of comprehensive statewide tobacco control and use prevention efforts that address the diverse tobacco products used among adults.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Tobacco use and risk of myocardial infarction in 52 countries in the INTERHEART study: a case-control study.

          Tobacco use is one of the major avoidable causes of cardiovascular diseases. We aimed to assess the risks associated with tobacco use (both smoking and non-smoking) and second hand tobacco smoke (SHS) worldwide. We did a standardised case-control study of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with 27,089 participants in 52 countries (12,461 cases, 14,637 controls). We assessed relation between risk of AMI and current or former smoking, type of tobacco, amount smoked, effect of smokeless tobacco, and exposure to SHS. We controlled for confounders such as differences in lifestyles between smokers and non-smokers. Current smoking was associated with a greater risk of non-fatal AMI (odds ratio [OR] 2.95, 95% CI 2.77-3.14, p 21 h per week). Young male current smokers had the highest population attributable risk (58.3%; 95% CI 55.0-61.6) and older women the lowest (6.2%, 4.1-9.2). Population attributable risk for exposure to SHS for more than 1 h per week in never smokers was 15.4% (12.1-19.3). Tobacco use is one of the most important causes of AMI globally, especially in men. All forms of tobacco use, including different types of smoking and chewing tobacco and inhalation of SHS, should be discouraged to prevent cardiovascular diseases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2004–2011

            Background In recent years response rates on telephone surveys have been declining. Rates for the behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) have also declined, prompting the use of new methods of weighting and the inclusion of cell phone sampling frames. A number of scholars and researchers have conducted studies of the reliability and validity of the BRFSS estimates in the context of these changes. As the BRFSS makes changes in its methods of sampling and weighting, a review of reliability and validity studies of the BRFSS is needed. Methods In order to assess the reliability and validity of prevalence estimates taken from the BRFSS, scholarship published from 2004–2011 dealing with tests of reliability and validity of BRFSS measures was compiled and presented by topics of health risk behavior. Assessments of the quality of each publication were undertaken using a categorical rubric. Higher rankings were achieved by authors who conducted reliability tests using repeated test/retest measures, or who conducted tests using multiple samples. A similar rubric was used to rank validity assessments. Validity tests which compared the BRFSS to physical measures were ranked higher than those comparing the BRFSS to other self-reported data. Literature which undertook more sophisticated statistical comparisons was also ranked higher. Results Overall findings indicated that BRFSS prevalence rates were comparable to other national surveys which rely on self-reports, although specific differences are noted for some categories of response. BRFSS prevalence rates were less similar to surveys which utilize physical measures in addition to self-reported data. There is very little research on reliability and validity for some health topics, but a great deal of information supporting the validity of the BRFSS data for others. Conclusions Limitations of the examination of the BRFSS were due to question differences among surveys used as comparisons, as well as mode of data collection differences. As the BRFSS moves to incorporating cell phone data and changing weighting methods, a review of reliability and validity research indicated that past BRFSS landline only data were reliable and valid as measured against other surveys. New analyses and comparisons of BRFSS data which include the new methodologies and cell phone data will be needed to ascertain the impact of these changes on estimates in the future.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Tobacco Product Use Among Adults - United States, 2013-2014.

              While significant declines in cigarette smoking have occurred among U.S. adults during the past 5 decades, the use of emerging tobacco products* has increased in recent years (1-3). To estimate tobacco use among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyzed data from the 2013-2014 National Adult Tobacco Survey (NATS). During 2013-2014, 21.3% of U.S. adults used a tobacco product every day or some days, and 25.5% of U.S. adults used a tobacco product every day, some days, or rarely. Despite progress in reducing cigarette smoking, during 2013-2014, cigarettes remained the most commonly used tobacco product among adults. Young adults aged 18-24 years reported the highest prevalence of use of emerging tobacco products, including water pipes/hookahs and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Furthermore, racial/ethnic and sociodemographic differences in the use of any tobacco product were observed, with higher use reported among males; non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and non-Hispanics of other races(†); persons aged <45 years; persons living in the Midwest or South; persons with a General Educational Development (GED) certificate; persons who were single/never married/not living with a partner or divorced/separated/widowed; persons with annual household income <$20,000; and persons who were lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB). Population-level interventions that focus on all forms of tobacco product use, including tobacco price increases, high-impact anti-tobacco mass media campaigns, comprehensive smoke-free laws, and enhanced access to help quitting tobacco use, in conjunction with FDA regulation of tobacco products, are critical to reducing tobacco-related diseases and deaths in the United States.(§).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Prev Chronic Dis
                Prev Chronic Dis
                PCD
                Preventing Chronic Disease
                Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
                1545-1151
                2019
                07 February 2019
                : 16
                : E17
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
                [2 ]Division of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: S. Sean Hu, MD, DrPH, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop S107-7, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341. Telephone: 770-488-5845. Email: fik4@ 123456cdc.gov .
                Article
                18_0362
                10.5888/pcd16.180362
                6395075
                30730828
                fe977894-3efb-45eb-9b56-269e72f3ac3f
                History
                Categories
                Original Research
                Peer Reviewed

                Health & Social care
                Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article