Systematic review of cigars, cigarillos, and little cigars among adolescents: Setting research agenda to inform tobacco control policy

Kong, Grace; Creamer, MeLisa R.; Simon, Patricia; Cavallo, Dana A.; Ross, Jennifer Cornacchione; Hinds, Josephine T.; Fishbein, Howard; Gutierrez, Kevin M.

doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2019.04.032

Cited by 16 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…not a critical or systematic review; Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Knight et al ( 2014 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Johnston et al ( 2016 ) Ineligible study design, i.e. not a critical or systematic review; Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Jones and Geneau ( 2012 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Karimkhani et al ( 2016 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Kong et al ( 2019 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Kühne et al ( 2021 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Morton et al ( 2012 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Nicolau et al ( 2012 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Okland et al ( 2017 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Oncology Nursing Forum ( 2019 ) Ineligible study design, i.e. not a critical or systematic review Pozzar and Berry ( 2017 ) Core concept does not evaluate research priority setting exercises Pratt ( 2020 ) Ineligible study design, i.e.…”

Section: Appendix A: Search Strategy and Summary Of Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas. Main body We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area. Conclusion Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

show abstract

Section: Appendix A: Search Strategy and Summary Of Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We conducted analyses separately for each survey using R 3.4.0 [28] and the survey package [29,30] to generate weighted estimates to represent the US civilian, non-institutionalized adult (18+) and youth (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17) populations. Where appropriate (e.g., PATH), estimated standard errors and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the balanced repeated replication method…”

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies continue to cite sometimes decade or older trends [13][14][15] and relatively few studies have reported on recent prevalence and use of cigars in general or flavored cigar products specifically. A 2019 systematic review of the literature on cigar research on youth echoed this sentiment in identifying flavored cigar research as an understudied domain [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Flavored Cigar Products As They Relate To Questions of Public Health

Joyce

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Flavors in tobacco products is a subject of public health debate and increasing regulatory attention. There is interest in gaining an in-depth understanding of flavored cigar smoking prevalence and behaviors to address the use of flavors in cigars and questions of public health.Methods: Seven publicly available data resources that assess flavored cigar use were analyzed. Two focus on youth tobacco use (NYTS, MTF), four focus on adult tobacco use (HINTS-FDA, NATS, TPRPS, TUS-CPS), and one on both groups (PATH). Available data (2011-2019) were analyzed to assess usage trends over time. In addition, longitudinal analysis of PATH adult data examined whether flavored cigar use was associated with future use of cigarettes or increased use of cigars.Results: Youth past 30-day estimates of cigar use ranged from 2%-10% for both flavored and non-flavored cigars, slightly higher in high school vs. middle school age subpopulations. These estimates have been stable or declined across all survey years within the respective surveys. Consistent trends were observed regarding frequency of use; most youth using cigars do so 1-2 days per month. Similar findings were observed for adult cigar users, with five surveys indicating less than 10% currently use cigars. Flavored cigar use is at less than 5% across all data sources. These overarching use estimates were essentially flat over time. Frequency of youth cigar use remained consistent over time, with most youth reporting cigar use on 1-2 days per month. In addition, multivariable modeling of PATH adult data did not identify an association between flavored cigar use and future use of cigarettes or increased use of cigars.Conclusions: No evidence was found of increased use or different usage patterns, among either youth or adults, of flavored cigars vs. non-flavored cigars. While these trends should continue to be monitored, there is no indication of existing or emerging public health concerns related to flavored cigars within the seven large, nationally representative, US government-funded epidemiologic databases examined.

show abstract

“…Substantial evidence exists that communication campaigns are effective at educating the public about the risks of cigarettes in ways that discourage use [ 8 ]. However, there is limited research on the effectiveness of messaging for cigarillos [ 9 , 10 ]. Unlike messaging about cigarette smoking, one challenge of messaging for cigar products is the variety of terminology and language used to describe and define these products [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do Adolescents and Young Adults Think a Cigarillo Is? Implications for Health Communication

Ross

Reboussin

Noar

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cigarillo use has increased among adolescents and young adults and has remained high. Public education efforts are needed to communicate with these populations about cigarillo use risks, but little is known about the implications of using the term “cigarillo” in such efforts. The study goal was to assess adolescent and young adult perceptions of the term “cigarillo”. We conducted a nationally representative online survey of 3517 adolescents and young adults (ages 13–25). We asked participants “what is a cigarillo?” with several response options. Participants were 49.6% female, 69.8% white, 5.2% reported past 30-day cigarillo use, and 11.6% reported lifetime cigarillo use. The most common response to the question “what is a cigarillo” was “I don’t know” (51% of participants), followed by “a thinner and smaller version of a traditional cigar” (30.1% of participants), which was chosen by 19.4% of adolescents and 36.8% of young adults. Among past 30-day cigarillo users, the most common response was “I don’t know” (54.9%) followed by “a thinner and smaller version of a traditional cigar” (45.1%). Cigarillo users were more likely to select the “a thinner and smaller version of a traditional cigar” response than nonusers. Findings suggest that many adolescents and young adults have varied understandings of the term “cigarillo”. Researchers and practitioners need to ensure that terminology used in health communication campaigns is clearly understood by the target audience to maximize effectiveness.

show abstract

Systematic review of cigars, cigarillos, and little cigars among adolescents: Setting research agenda to inform tobacco control policy

Cited by 16 publications

References 55 publications

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

Evaluation of Flavored Cigar Products As They Relate To Questions of Public Health

What Do Adolescents and Young Adults Think a Cigarillo Is? Implications for Health Communication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About