One in every twenty-five persons in America is a racial/ethnic minority who lives in a rural area. Our objective was to summarize how racism and, subsequently, the social determinants of health disproportionately affect rural racial/ethnic minority populations, provide a review of the cancer disparities experienced by rural racial/ethnic minority groups, and recommend policy, research, and intervention approaches to reduce these disparities. We found that rural Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations experience greater poverty and lack of access to care, which expose them to greater risk of developing cancer and experiencing poorer cancer outcomes in treatment and ultimately survival. There is a critical need for additional research to understand the disparities experienced by all rural racial/ethnic minority populations. We propose that policies aim to increase access to care and healthcare resources for these communities. Further, that observational and interventional research should more effectively address the intersections of rurality and race/ethnicity through reduced structural and interpersonal biases in cancer care, increased data access, more research on newer cancer screening and treatment modalities, and continued intervention and implementation research to understand how evidence-based practices can most effectively reduce disparities among these populations.

IntroductionThe US Food and Drug Administration most recently announced its intention to ban menthol cigarettes and cigars nationwide in April 2021. Implementation of the ban will require evidence that it would improve public health. This paper simulates the potential public health impact of a ban on menthol in cigarettes and cigars through its impacts on smoking initiation, smoking cessation and switching to nicotine vaping products (NVPs).MethodsAfter calibrating an established US simulation model to reflect recent use trends in cigarette and NVP use, we extended the model to incorporate menthol and non-menthol cigarette use under a status quo scenario. Applying estimates from a recent expert elicitation on the behavioural impacts of a menthol ban, we developed a menthol ban scenario with the ban starting in 2021. We estimated the public health impact as the difference between smoking and vaping-attributable deaths and life-years lost in the status quo scenario and the menthol ban scenario from 2021 to 2060.ResultsAs a result of the ban, overall smoking was estimated to decline by 15% as early as 2026 due to menthol smokers quitting both NVP and combustible use or switching to NVPs. These transitions are projected to reduce cumulative smoking and vaping-attributable deaths from 2021 to 2060 by 5% (650 000 in total) and reduce life-years lost by 8.8% (11.3 million). Sensitivity analyses showed appreciable public health benefits across different parameter specifications.Conclusions and relevanceOur findings strongly support the implementation of a ban on menthol in cigarettes and cigars.

Introduction The US FDA announced its intention to ban menthol in cigarettes. However, information is needed on how a federal ban would affect population health. We conducted an expert elicitation to gauge the impact of a menthol cigarette and cigar ban in the US. Methods We developed and pilot tested a questionnaire that focused on tobacco use transitions of current smokers (age 18-24 menthol, age 35-54 menthol, and age 35-54 non-menthol) and potential menthol smokers (age 12-24). Using a structured expert elicitation, we estimated mean net transitions under a ban from cigarette use to combustible tobacco product, smokeless tobacco, novel nicotine delivery product (NNDPs, such as e-cigarettes) use, or no tobacco use. Results Eleven experts provided responses. Of those ages 12-24 who would have initiated menthol cigarette use in the absence of a ban, the experts estimated that 41% would still initiate combustible products under a ban, while 18% would initiate with NNDPs and 39% would not initiate regular tobacco use. Combustible use by menthol smokers ages 35-54 was expected to decline by 20% post-ban relative to pre-ban rates, half switching to NNDPs and half quitting all tobacco use. Menthol smokers ages 18-24 were expected to reduce combustible use by 30%, with 16% switching to NNDPs. Greater reductions in combustible use were estimated for African-Americans across the three age groups. Negligible impacts were expected for current adult non-menthol smokers. Conclusions According to expert opinion, a menthol ban is expected to substantially reduce smoking initiation and combustible tobacco product use among current menthol smokers.

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are often marketed as a safer alternative to combustible tobacco products. The global EC market has rapidly expanded since their introduction, creating an urgent need for research describing the toxicity and chemical composition of ECs. We conducted an umbrella review to summarize the evidence from existing systematic reviews (SRs). Methods: The search for SRs was conducted across four electronic databases through 25 January 2022. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. Results: Twenty-five SRs were included in our umbrella review. Chemical profiles widely varied across studies included in the reviews, which was mainly attributed to the lack of standardized protocols investigating the constituents, and differences in EC devices and e-liquids tested. Metals were more abundant in some EC aerosols than cigarettes, while carbonyls were typically found at lower levels. There was consistent evidence of in vitro toxicity from EC aerosol and e-liquid exposure. AMSTAR-2 revealed important limitations across reviews. Conclusions: While most reviews concluded that ECs were likely less harmful than cigarettes, there was hesitancy to draw clear conclusions due to variable analytical procedures and inconsistent findings among the included studies. Future SRs with improved methodology and reporting are needed to adequately inform tobacco regulatory actions.

No abstract

E-cigarettes are often marketed as a safer alternative to combustible cigarettes. However, their health effects, especially those associated with long-term use, remain largely uncertain. We conducted an umbrella review of the cardiopulmonary and carcinogenic risks of e-cigarette use, distinguishing between short-term and long-term health effects. The search for systematic reviews was conducted across four electronic databases through 25 January 2022. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. Seventeen systematic reviews, including five meta-analyses, were included in our umbrella review. There was a clear underreporting of e-cigarette devices and e-liquid types, e-cigarette and cigarette exposure, and the health and smoking status of study participants. Overall, the findings suggest that short-term use of e-cigarettes may be associated with acute cardiopulmonary risks, although to a lesser extent than cigarette use. Long-term e-cigarette use may have pulmonary/respiratory benefits in those who switch from chronic cigarette smoking, particularly in individuals with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Evidence on intermediate and long-term carcinogenic effects is lacking. This umbrella review underscores the urgent need for systematic reviews with better adherence to established reporting guidelines, consistent definitions of duration of e-cigarette use, a focus on newer devices, and accounting for the impacts of former or current smoking.

No abstract

Background Expert elicitation (EE) has been used across disciplines to estimate input parameters for computational modeling research when information is sparse or conflictual. Objectives We conducted a systematic review to compare EE methods used to generate model input parameters in health research. Data Sources PubMed and Web of Science. Study Eligibility Modeling studies that reported the use of EE as the source for model input probabilities were included if they were published in English before June 2021 and reported health outcomes. Data Abstraction and Synthesis Studies were classified as “formal” EE methods if they explicitly reported details of their elicitation process. Those that stated use of expert opinion but provided limited information were classified as “indeterminate” methods. In both groups, we abstracted citation details, study design, modeling methodology, a description of elicited parameters, and elicitation methods. Comparisons were made between elicitation methods. Study Appraisal Studies that conducted a formal EE were appraised on the reporting quality of the EE. Quality appraisal was not conducted for studies of indeterminate methods. Results The search identified 1520 articles, of which 152 were included. Of the included studies, 40 were classified as formal EE and 112 as indeterminate methods. Most studies were cost-effectiveness analyses (77.6%). Forty-seven indeterminate method studies provided no information on methods for generating estimates. Among formal EEs, the average reporting quality score was 9 out of 16. Limitations Elicitations on nonhealth topics and those reported in the gray literature were not included. Conclusions We found poor reporting of EE methods used in modeling studies, making it difficult to discern meaningful differences in approaches. Improved quality standards for EEs would improve the validity and replicability of computational models. Highlights We find extensive use of expert elicitation for the development of model input parameters, but most studies do not provide adequate details of their elicitation methods. Lack of reporting hinders greater discussion of the merits and challenges of using expert elicitation for model input parameter development. There is a need to establish expert elicitation best practices and reporting guidelines.