Co-occurring risk factors for current cigarette smoking in a U.S. nationally representative sample

Higgins, Stephen T.; Kurti, Allison N.; Redner, Ryan; White, Thomas J.; Keith, Diana R.; Gaalema, Diann E.; Sprague, Brian L.; Stanton, Cassandra A.; Roberts, Megan E.; Doogan, Nathan J.; Priest, Jeff S.

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.025

Cited by 74 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thirteen studies were identified that examined current or lifetime smoking by AUD and/or SUD diagnosis (see Table 3): ten studies of adults 19,21–30 and two studies of adolescents 31,32 . The majority of studies (n =8) were conducted in the U.S. with five of those studies using the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) dataset.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of epidemiologic research on smoking behavior among persons with alcohol and illicit substance use disorders

Weinberger

Funk

Goodwin

2016

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persons with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and substance use disorders (SUDs) appear to be heavily affected by cigarette smoking. In order to address the consequences of smoking in this population, an understanding of the current state of knowledge is needed. Epidemiologic research provides the opportunity to obtain detailed information on smoking behaviors in large community samples. The aim of this paper was to synthesize the epidemiologic evidence on smoking among persons with AUDs/SUDs and suggest directions for future research. Literature searches of Medline and PubMed were used to identify articles and additional articles were elicited from publication reference lists. To be included in the review, papers had to be published in English, analyze epidemiologic data, and examine an aspect of smoking behavior in persons with AUDs/SUDs. Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. In summary, epidemiologic evidence to date suggests greater lifetime and current smoking, nicotine dependence, and non-cigarette tobacco use; lower quitting; and differences in quit attempts and withdrawal symptoms for persons with AUDs/SUDs compared to other people. Most studies examined nationally representative data and were conducted on persons in the United States and Australia. Few publications examined outcomes by demographics (e.g., gender, age) but these studies suggested that specific patterns differ by demographic subgroups. More research is needed on persons with AUDs/SUDs in order to develop the most effective public health and clinical interventions to reduce smoking behaviors, improve cessation outcomes, and reduce the harmful consequences of smoking for those with AUDs/SUDs.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Smith et al 28 and Higgins et al 30 were the only two studies that were identified as reporting analyses of smoking and AUDs/SUDs by demographics. Higgins et al 30 found no significant two-way interactions of AUD or SUD and smoking by gender, age, or race/ethnicity.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of epidemiologic research on smoking behavior among persons with alcohol and illicit substance use disorders

Weinberger

Funk

Goodwin

2016

Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In several instances, poverty seemed to exacerbate the urban/rural differences; this finding is consistent with other tobacco research showing that risk factors can have additive and interactive effects. 25 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rural tobacco use across the United States: How rural and urban areas differ, broken down by census regions and divisions

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This project compared urban/rural differences in tobacco use, and examined how such differences vary across regions/divisions of the U.S. Using pooled 2012–2013 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), we obtained weighted prevalence estimates for the use of cigarettes, menthol cigarettes, chewing tobacco, snuff, cigars, and pipes. NSDUH also provides information on participants’ residence: rural vs. urban, and Census region and division. Overall, use of cigarettes, chew, and snuff were higher in rural, compared to urban areas. Across all tobacco products, urban/rural differences were particularly pronounced in certain divisions (e.g., the South Atlantic). Effects did not appear to be fully explained by differences in poverty. Going beyond previous research, these findings show that urban/rural differences vary across different types of tobacco products, as well as by division of the country. Results underscore the need for regulatory efforts that will reduce health disparities.

show abstract

“…Smoking prevalence is 25% for persons with anxiety disorders, 30% for those with depressive disorders (Grant et al, 2004), and 50–80% for those with schizophrenia (Prochaska et al, 2008; Schroeder, 2009). Lasser et al (2000) estimated that 44% of all cigarettes smoked in the U.S. were consumed by persons with mental health diagnoses, and Higgins et al (2016) estimated that 14% of all U.S. smokers are persons with drug and/or alcohol abuse problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking-related outcomes and associations with tobacco-free policy in addiction treatment, 2015–2016

Guydish

Yip

et al. 2017

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study assessed changes in smoking-related outcomes in two cross-sectional samples of clients enrolled in addiction treatment and whether tobacco-free grounds policies were associated with smoking-related outcomes. Method Clients in 25 programs were surveyed in 2015 (N = 1,176) and 2016 (N = 1,055). The samples were compared on smoking prevalence, cigarettes per day (CPD), thinking of quitting, past year quit attempts, staff and clients smoking together, attitudes towards quitting, and tobacco-related services. Second, programs with (n = 6) and without (n = 17) tobacco-free grounds at both time points were compared on smoking-related outcomes. Last, we examined changes in these measures for two programs that adopted tobacco-free grounds between 2015 and 2016. Results There was one difference across years, such that the mean score for the tobacco Program Service scale increased from 2.37 to 2.48 (p = 0.043, effect size = 0.02). In programs with tobacco-free grounds policies, compared to those without, both CPD and the rate of staff and clients smoking together were significantly lower. In the two programs where tobacco-free grounds were implemented during study years, client smoking prevalence decreased (92.5% v. 67.6%, p = .005), the rate of staff and clients smoking together decreased (35.6% v. 4.2%, p = .031), mean CPD decreased (10.62 v. 8.24, p < .001) and mean tobacco services received by clients increased (2.08 v. 3.05, p < .001). Conclusion Addiction treatment programs, and agencies responsible for licensing, regulating and funding these programs, should implement tobacco-free grounds policies.

show abstract

Co-occurring risk factors for current cigarette smoking in a U.S. nationally representative sample

Cited by 74 publications

References 30 publications

A review of epidemiologic research on smoking behavior among persons with alcohol and illicit substance use disorders

A review of epidemiologic research on smoking behavior among persons with alcohol and illicit substance use disorders

Rural tobacco use across the United States: How rural and urban areas differ, broken down by census regions and divisions

Smoking-related outcomes and associations with tobacco-free policy in addiction treatment, 2015–2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About