Likelihood of Unemployed Smokers vs Nonsmokers Attaining Reemployment in a One-Year Observational Study

Prochaska, Judith J.; Michalek, Anne K.; Brown-Johnson, Catherine; Daza, Eric J.; Baiocchi, Michael; Anzai, Nicole E.; Rogers, Amy; Grigg, Mia; Chieng, Amy

doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0772

Cited by 26 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Smoking lowers subsequent odds of gaining employment and expendable income. 34,35 Nicotine dysregulates neural circuitry implicated in mental illness 36 and may increase desire to drink alcohol. 37 While smoking certainly causes disease, including some conditions involved in this study’s disability/limitation variable, 1 smoking-related illness can also motivate some smokers to quit, 38 which might explain why the disparity in quitting estimates (ie, current vs former smoking) by disability/limitation observed herein was modest.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Cumulative Socioeconomic and Health-Related Disadvantage With Disparities in Smoking Prevalence in the United States, 2008 to 2017

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Understanding emerging patterns of smoking disparities among disadvantaged populations can guide tobacco control policy. OBJECTIVE To estimate disparities in smoking prevalence associated with the number of socioeconomic and health-related disadvantages faced by a population among US adults from 2008 to 2017. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Nationally representative cross-sectional annual household-based probability sample of US noninstitutionalized residents. Polytomous regression estimated associations of disadvantage variables, survey year, and their interaction with the following 3 pairwise contrasts: current vs never smoking (estimate of overall disparities), current vs former smoking (unique contribution of disparities in smoking cessation), and former vs never smoking (unique contribution of disparities in smoking initiation). The setting was in-home face-to-face interviews. Participants were respondents in 2008 to 2017 survey years who were aged 25 years or older (N = 279 559). EXPOSURES Self-reported past-year unemployment, income below the federal poverty line, absence of high school diploma, disability/limitation interfering with daily functions, serious psychological distress on the Kessler 6-item screen, and at least 60 past-year heavy drinking days, each coded yes or no. These indicators were summed in a cumulative disadvantage index (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 or 6). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Self-reported current, former (ever smoked ≥ 100 cigarettes, had since quit, and not currently smoking), and never (<100 cigarettes) smoking. RESULTS Among 278 048 respondents (mean [SD] age, 51.9 [16.8] years; 55.7% female) with data on smoking history (99.5% of the sample), the mean current smoking prevalence across 2008 to 2017 compared with populations without disadvantages was successively higher among populations with 1 disadvantage (21.4% vs 13.8%; current vs never smoking adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.34; 95% CI, 2.27–2.43), 2 disadvantages (26.6% vs 13.8%; OR, 3.55; 95% CI,3.39–3.72), 3 disadvantages (35.1% vs 13.8%; OR, 5.35; 95% CI, 5.05–5.66), 4 disadvantages(45.7% vs 13.8%; OR, 8.59; 95% CI, 7.91–9.34), or 5 or 6 disadvantages (58.2% vs 13.8%; OR,14.70; 95% CI, 12.30–17.50). In current vs former and former vs never smoking status contrasts, ORs were lower but also showed successively greater associations with increasing cumulative disadvantage. Current (vs never) smoking odds significantly declined each year among populations with 0 (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94–0.96), 1 (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95–0.97), or 2 (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97–0.99) disadvantages but did not change across 2008 to 2017 among those with 3 or more disadvantages. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Results of this study demonstrate that US disparities in smoking prevalence from 2008 to 2017 were successively larger with each additional disadvantage faced, were expressed in higher smoking initiation odds and lower smoking cessation odds, and widened over time.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Association of Cumulative Socioeconomic and Health-Related Disadvantage With Disparities in Smoking Prevalence in the United States, 2008 to 2017

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second variable of interest was employment status. We hypothesized that people who were working would be less likely to smoke, given evidence of the inverse relationship between smoking and employment (De Vogli & Santinello, 2005) as well as re-employment after job loss (Prochaska et al, 2016). The final variable was residential status.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlates of Current Smoking Among Adults Served by the Public Mental Health System

Swarbrick

Cook

Razzano

et al. 2017

Journal of Dual Diagnosis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, resulting in an estimated 480,000 deaths per year [31]. Beyond early mortality, the consequences of tobacco use are wide-ranging, extending to physical health, mental health, and even the ability to find employment-particularly for those from vulnerable populations (e.g., those with mental illness, LGBTQ+) [31][32][33][34]. In light of the mortality and impairment associated with tobacco use, reducing the number of people who smoke is a major goal in behavioral and public health.…”

Section: An Example From Smoking Cessationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Involving stakeholders in the design of ecological momentary assessment research: An example from smoking cessation

Soyster¹,

Fisher²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a data collection method that involves repeated sampling of participants’ real-time experience and behavior as they unfold in context. A primary challenge in EMA research is to design surveys that adequately assess constructs of interest while minimizing participant burden. To achieve this balance, researchers must make decisions regarding which constructs should be included and how those constructs should be assessed. To date, a dearth of direction exists for how to best design and carry out EMA studies. The lack of guidelines renders it difficult to systematically compare findings across EMA studies. Study design decisions may be improved by including input from potential research participants (stakeholders). The goal of the present paper is to introduce a general approach for including stakeholders in the development of EMA research design. Rather than suggesting rigid prescriptive guidelines (e.g., the correct number of survey items), we present a systematic and reproducible process through which extant research and stakeholder experience can be leveraged to make design decisions. To that end, we report methods and results for a series of focus group discussions with current tobacco users that were conducted to inform the design of an EMA study aimed at identifying person-specific mechanisms driving tobacco use. We conclude by providing recommendations for item-selection procedures in EMA studies.

show abstract

Likelihood of Unemployed Smokers vs Nonsmokers Attaining Reemployment in a One-Year Observational Study

Cited by 26 publications

References 22 publications

Association of Cumulative Socioeconomic and Health-Related Disadvantage With Disparities in Smoking Prevalence in the United States, 2008 to 2017

Association of Cumulative Socioeconomic and Health-Related Disadvantage With Disparities in Smoking Prevalence in the United States, 2008 to 2017

Correlates of Current Smoking Among Adults Served by the Public Mental Health System

Involving stakeholders in the design of ecological momentary assessment research: An example from smoking cessation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About