Background: Researchers in tobacco control are concerned about the increasing prevalence of waterpipe smoking in the United States, which may pose similar risks as cigarette smoking. This review explores the prevalence of waterpipe smoking in the United States as well as the shortcomings of current U.S. policy for waterpipe control and regulation. Methods: Researchers conducted a literature review for waterpipe articles dated between 2004 and 2015 using five online databases: MEDLINE, CINHAHL, ScienceDirect, PMC, and Cochrane Library. Results: To date, few studies have explored the marketing and regulation of waterpipe smoking in the U.S., which has increased in the last ten years, especially among women, adolescents, and young adults. Data indicate that the majority of waterpipe smokers are unaware of the potential risks of use. In addition, current tobacco control policies do not address waterpipe smoking, enabling tobacco companies to readily market and sell waterpipe products to young adults, who are at risk for becoming lifelong smokers. Conclusion: Policy makers in the area of public health need to update existing tobacco regulations to include waterpipe smoking. Similarly, public health researchers should develop public health campaigns and interventions to address the increasing rates of waterpipe smoking in the United States.

BACKGROUNDWaterpipe smoking (WPS) is a social custom common in many Middle Eastern, North African, and Asian countries and has become increasingly popular in the US, especially among youth; however, WPS smoking may be increasing in the US adult population as well. There is a common belief among waterpipe (WP) smokers that WPS is less harmful than smoking cigarettes. Thus, this review aims to systematically explore the literature on the effects of WP tobacco smoking with a particular focus on cardiovascular and respiratory health outcomes as well as on oxidative stress, immunity, and cell cycle interference health outcomes.METHODOLOGYWe conducted a systematic review, guided by the criteria of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, using the following online databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, PMC, and Cochrane Library. Results were summarized qualitatively.RESULTSForty studies met the inclusion criteria established for this review. Based on the existing evidence, several cardiovascular and respiratory physiologic health indicators and conditions have been shown to be negatively affected by WPS. In addition to the effects of nicotine and chemical toxicant exposures, WPS was significantly associated with an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, and lower pulmonary function test results, as well as a number of health conditions such as lung cancer, alterations in oxidative stress, immunity, and cell cycle interference.CONCLUSIONThe current literature provides evidence that WPS is associated with a number of negative health indicators and outcomes. There is need for more research related to WPS and its effects on health so that appropriate campaigns and prevention interventions can be implemented to control the epidemic increase of WPS in the US.

Smoking cessation intervention studies need to target appropriate health beliefs, especially the high risk of cancer caused by smoking among Arab Americans.

This cross-sectional study examined the differences in barriers to cessation and reasons for quitting smoking among dual smokers of cigarettes and waterpipe tobacco, exclusive cigarette smokers and exclusive waterpipe smokers. Participants were Arab American adults residing in Richmond, Virginia, who were recruited from Middle Eastern grocery stores, restaurants/lounges and faith and charity organizations. The study yielded several key findings: (1) Exclusive cigarette and waterpipe smokers had similar mean barriers to quitting and were more concerned about their health than dual smokers. (F(2, 150) = 5.594, p = 0.0045). This implies that barriers to smoking and health concerns could be a function of the individual who smokes rather than the modality of smoking itself. (2) Exclusive cigarette or waterpipe smokers and dual smokers may have different reasons for quitting, since they have different reasons for smoking. The proportion of smokers who endorsed smoking as a messy habit as the reason among exclusive cigarette smokers was 0.37, whereas the proportion among exclusive waterpipe smokers was 0.04 and among dual smokers 0.39. The difference in proportions is significant, χ2 (df = 2, N = 154) = 13.17, p = 0.0014. In summary, this study supports the need to further investigate dual cigarette and waterpipe smokers, as the study results indicate greater barriers to smoking cessation in this group. Recognition and understanding of these barriers among dual tobacco users would be important for any future tobacco intervention among waterpipe smokers.

To date, no smoking cessation programs are available for Arab American (ARA) men, who are a vulnerable population with high rates of smoking. Thus, the primary aim of this one group pre-test/post-test study was to assess the effectiveness of Sehatack—a culturally and linguistically tailored smoking cessation program for ARA men. The study sample was 79 ARA men with a mean age of 43 years who smoked between 5 and 40 cigarettes (mean = 19.75, SD = 9.1) per day (98.7%). All of the participants reported more interest in smoking cessation post-intervention and many of the participants in the baseline (38.5%) and post-intervention phases (47.7%) wanted to quit smoking ”very much”. For daily smokers who completed the smoking cessation program, the median number of cigarettes smoked daily was significantly lower than those in the post-intervention phase (Z = −6.915, p < 0.001). Results of this preliminary study indicate that: (a) Sehatack may be a promising way for ARA men to quit smoking, and (b) culturally relevant smoking cessation counselors can be trained to recruit and retain ARA smokers in an intensive group smoking cessation program. Strengths of this study were community engagement and rapport between three faith organizations and the University of Florida College of Nursing. However, a larger trial is needed to address study limitations and to confirm benefits in this population.