Nicotine-naïve adolescents who live with tobacco products users, 2018 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey

Kalan, Mohammad Ebrahimi; Bursac, Zoran; Behaleh, Raed; Jebai, Rime; Osibogun, Olatokunbo; Gautam, Prem; Li, Wei; Anderson, Tera; Rahman, Abir; Ward, Kenneth D.; Taleb, Ziyad Ben

doi:10.1080/10550887.2020.1856299

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with past research,49 50 we found that participants who live with someone who uses a tobacco product are more likely to be MOEC and POLY. Secondhand exposure to e-cigarette and tobacco products may normalise tobacco use behaviours among youth, lowering perceptions of danger and increasing susceptibility to the use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products 50 51.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Changes in patterns of youth multiple tobacco and/or e-cigarette product use in the US between 2014 and 2020: a multiple-group latent class analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMultiple tobacco and e-cigarette product (MTEP) use, the concurrent use of two or more different types of tobacco and/or e-cigarettes products, is common among young people in the US. Changes in patterns of MTEP use among US youth between 2014 and 2020 were identified and the determinants of MTEP use were examined.MethodsFour years of repeated cross-sectional data from the US National Youth Tobacco Survey of middle and high school students from grade 6 to 12 (Ntotal=77 402). Multigroup latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to the data series to allow for simultaneous identification of MTEP use patterns between 2014 and 2020. Logistic regression was used to predict class membership on demographic and tobacco-related variables.FindingsOver the 7-year period, LCA identified three patterns: minimal/non-users (MNU: ~89.8%), mostly occasional e-cigarette and cigarette users (MOEC: ~9%) and polytobacco users (POLY: ~1.2%). From 2014 to 2020, MNU increased from 86.4% to 92% (p<0.05), while MOEC and POLY decreased from 11.2% to 7.9% and from 2.4% to 0.1%, respectively. The probability of regular e-cigarette use increased from 0 to 2.3% among MNU, 6% to 31.9% among MOEC and 29.6% to 67.6% among POLY (p<0.05). In binomial logistic regression, being male, in high school, non-heterosexual, living with someone who uses tobacco at home, having cognitive difficulties, having lower perceptions of tobacco’s danger and exposure to tobacco marketing were associated with greater odds of MOEC and POLY than MNU.ConclusionsThere was an increase in regular e-cigarette use in all three classes, but a corresponding decrease in the proportion of MTEP use. Public health interventions to discourage uptake of e-cigarettes, such as tighter restrictions on marketing to minors, are warranted and there is a need to consider disparities in the determinants of MTEP use.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Changes in patterns of youth multiple tobacco and/or e-cigarette product use in the US between 2014 and 2020: a multiple-group latent class analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several investigators have concluded that EC could be associated with the development of pulmonary disorders, including asthma and might increase asthma severity and exacerbations [ 18 , 31 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ]. Numerous cross-sectional studies with a large number of participants have described the significant association between EC use and even secondhand exposure and asthma diagnosis and severity [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 ], compared to the few studies which found no association [ 75 , 76 ], or even negative association between EC use and asthma [ 77 , 78 ]. A prospective cohort study also found that EC use was associated with an increased risk of developing respiratory disease, including asthma, independent of cigarette smoking [ 79 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dual use, which is the most common usage pattern, is riskier than using either product alone [ 87 ]. Dual use, with even passive exposure to EC, was identified as significant predictor for asthma in two more cross-sectional studies [ 73 , 92 ] and one meta-analysis [ 93 ]. A recently published systematic review concluded that evidence up to now suggests that the side effects of ECs may be exaggerated in people with asthma [ 32 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electronic Cigarettes and Asthma: What Do We Know So Far?

Kotoulas

Κatsaounou

Riha

et al. 2021

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic cigarettes (EC) are a novel product, marketed as an alternative to tobacco cigarette. Its effects on human health have not been investigated widely yet, especially in specific populations such as patients with asthma. With this review, we use the existing literature in order to answer four crucial questions concerning: (1) ECs’ role in the pathogenesis of asthma; (2) ECs’ effects on lung function and airway inflammation in patients with asthma; (3) ECs’ effects on asthma clinical characteristics in asthmatics who use it regularly; and (4) ECs’ effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool in these patients. Evidence suggests that many EC compounds might contribute to the pathogenesis of asthma. Lung function seems to deteriorate by the use of EC in this population, while airway inflammation alters, with the aggravation of T-helper-type-2 (Th2) inflammation being the most prominent but not the exclusive effect. EC also seems to worsen asthma symptoms and the rate and severity of exacerbations in asthmatics who are current vapers, whilst evidence suggests that its effectiveness as a smoking cessation tool might be limited. Asthmatic patients should avoid using EC.

show abstract

“…(Hart et al, 2018). Rural residents are also more likely than nonrural residents to report that someone smokes in their presence at home or at work (Bernat & Choi, 2018; Ebrahimi Kalan et al, 2020), and living with a tobacco user significantly increases SHS toxicant exposure (Park, 2020) and leads to tobacco use among adolescents (Helme et al, 2019; Owusu et al, 2019).…”

Section: Drivers Of Tobacco Use In Rural Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding rural tobacco use disparities.

Ozga¹,

Romm²,

Turiano³

et al. 2021

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional tobacco product (cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) and polytobacco use rates are significantly higher among rural adolescents and adults compared to their nonrural counterparts. Such disparities are due to several factors that promote tobacco use initiation and continuation, including individual-level psychopharmacological factors and structural-level factors such as fewer tobacco control efforts (e.g., fewer smoke-free policies and lower tobacco excise taxes), targeted tobacco marketing, less access to healthrelevant resources, and more positive cultural norms surrounding tobacco use in rural communities. In this review, we use cumulative disadvantage theory as a framework for understanding how psychopharmacological and structural-level factors serve as drivers of tobacco use in rural areas. We start by describing how structural-level differences between rural-nonrural communities impact psychopharmacological influences and, when available, how these factors influence tobacco use. We conclude by discussing the interplay between factors, providing suggestions for ways to assess our application of cumulative disadvantage theory empirically and making recommendations for research and policy implementation in rural areas. Public Health SignificanceDespite public health efforts, rural-nonrural disparities for traditional tobacco products (cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) have only widened in recent years. We use cumulative disadvantage theory as a framework for describing the interplay between psychopharmacological and structural-level drivers of tobacco use in rural areas. Based on this framework, we suggest ways to assess our proposed model empirically and make research and policy recommendations for reducing tobacco use in rural areas.

show abstract

Nicotine-naïve adolescents who live with tobacco products users, 2018 Florida Youth Tobacco Survey

Cited by 5 publications

References 7 publications

Changes in patterns of youth multiple tobacco and/or e-cigarette product use in the US between 2014 and 2020: a multiple-group latent class analysis

Changes in patterns of youth multiple tobacco and/or e-cigarette product use in the US between 2014 and 2020: a multiple-group latent class analysis

Electronic Cigarettes and Asthma: What Do We Know So Far?

Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding rural tobacco use disparities.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About