RESEARCH PAPER
Sociodemographic differences in single, dual, and poly tobacco use among Appalachian youth
Joy L. Hart 1, 2, 3  
,  
Lindsey A. Wood 1, 3
,  
Kandi L. Walker 1, 2, 3
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Communication, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
2
American Heart Association Tobacco Center for Regulatory Science, Dallas, United States
3
School of Medicine, Envirome Institute, University of Louisville, Louisville, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Joy L. Hart   

University of Louisville, Department of Communication, Louisville, KY 40292, United States
Publication date: 2020-07-28
Submission date: 2020-04-29
Final revision date: 2020-06-10
Acceptance date: 2020-06-29
 
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2020;6(July):45
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
Youth
 
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Patterns of youth tobacco use, including use of multiple products, have likely shifted as e-cigarettes have grown in popularity. However, there is limited understanding of dual and poly tobacco use and the associated disparities, especially among Appalachian youth.

Methods:
We analyzed Youth Appalachian Tobacco Study data (n=1116) to estimate prevalence of current (past-30 day) cigarette, e-cigarette, and smokeless tobacco use by gender, race/ethnicity, age, school type, state, smartphone use, and number of household tobacco users. We created a pattern of tobacco use variable (i.e. never, former, single, dual, poly) based on all possible combinations of the included products. Using multivariable multinomial logistic regression (outcome reference: never use), we evaluated associations between sociodemographic characteristics and patterns of tobacco use.

Results:
Former (16.2%) was the most common tobacco use group, followed by single (10.8%), dual (4.5%), and poly (2.4%) use. Dual and poly use were more prevalent among males, Whites/Caucasians, older participants, and participants living in households with tobacco users. Kentucky residents (vs New York) had higher odds of dual use (OR=5.15; 95% CI: 1.72–15.44), and youth who used smartphones for ≥20 hours/week (vs <20 hours/week) had greater odds of poly use (OR=3.02; 95% CI: 1.34–6.80).

Conclusions:
Differences in single, dual, and poly tobacco use were evidenced by sociodemographic characteristics. Additional inquiry should further examine these disparities so that tobacco prevention interventions can be appropriately tailored.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Clara Sears, Alex Lee, Courteney Smith, and Allison Siu for assisting with data collection and Shesh Rai for assisting with the analyses. We also acknowledge the University of Louisville's research computing group and the Cardinal Research Cluster, whose resources facilitated our work.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have each completed and submitted an ICMJE form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. J. L. Hart and K. Walker report grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study.
FUNDING
This work was supported, in part, by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and FDA Center for Tobacco Products under Award Numbers P50HL120163 and U54HL120163. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration, or the American Heart Association. The funding sponsors had no role in study design; data collection, analyses, or interpretation; manuscript preparation; or the decision to publish the results.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (27)
1.
Bhatnagar A, Whitsel LP, Blaha MJ, et al. New and emerging tobacco products and the nicotine endgame: The role of robust regulation and comprehensive tobacco control and prevention: A presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2019;139(19):e937-e958. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000669
 
2.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: 50 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/b.... Accessed June 10, 2020.
 
3.
Wang TW, Gentzke AS, Creamer MR, et al. Tobacco product use and associated factors among middle and high school students-United States, 2019. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019;68(12):1-22. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6812a1
 
4.
Primack BA, Soneji S, Stoolmiller M, Fine MJ, Sargent JD. Progression to traditional cigarette smoking after electronic cigarette use among US adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(11):1018-1023. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1742
 
5.
Andrade MD, Hastings G, Angus K. Promotion of electronic cigarettes: Tobacco marketing reinvented? BMJ. 2013;347:f7473. doi:10.1136/bmj.f7473
 
6.
Osibogun O, Taleb ZB, Bahelah R, Salloum RG, Maziak W. Correlates of poly-tobacco use among youth and young adults: Findings from the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health study, 2013-2014. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;187:160-164. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.02.024
 
7.
King JL, Reboussin D, Cornacchione Ross J, Wiseman KD, Wagoner KG, Sutfin EL. Polytobacco use among a nationally representative sample of adolescent and young adult e-cigarette users. J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(4):407-412. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.04.010
 
8.
Roberts ME, Doogan NJ, Stanton CA, Quisenberry AJ, Villanti AC, Gaalema DE, et al. Rural versus urban use of traditional and emerging tobacco products in the United States, 2013-2014. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(10):1554-1559. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303967
 
9.
Sung HY, Wang Y, Yao T, Lightwood J, Max W. Polytobacco use and nicotine dependence symptoms among US adults, 2012-2014. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(suppl_1):S88-S98. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty050
 
10.
Stanton CA, Halenar MJ. Patterns and correlates of multiple tobacco product use in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(suppl_1):S1-S4. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty081
 
11.
Hart JL, Walker KL, Sears CG, Tompkins LK, Lee AS, Mattingly DT, et al. The 'state' of tobacco: Perceptions of tobacco among Appalachian youth in Kentucky. Tob Prev Cessat. 2018;4(January). doi:10.18332/tpc/81857
 
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System. https://www.cdc.gov/statesyste.... Αccessed April 19, 2020.
 
13.
Appalachian Regional Commission. Income and poverty in Appalachia. In: The Appalachian Region: A data overview from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey. https://www.arc.gov/noindex/re.... Accessed April 19, 2020.
 
14.
PDA Inc., The Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, Appalachian Regional Commission. Creating a culture of health in Appalachia: Disparities and bright spots. 2017. https://www.arc.gov/assets/res.... Accessed June 10, 2020.
 
15.
American Lung Association. Cutting tobacco’s rural roots: Tobacco use in rural communities. http://www.lcmh.com/documents/.... Accessed June 10, 2020.
 
16.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2014. In: State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System. https://www.cdc.gov/statesyste.... Accessed June 10, 2020.
 
17.
Mattingly DT, Pfeiffer J, Tompkins LK, et al. Associations between Appalachian youth tobacco consumption and communication channel use. Tob Prev Cessat. 2020;6(March). doi:10.18332/tpc/118234
 
18.
Owusu D, Mamudu HM, Robertson C, Wang L, Guy H, Collins C, Boghozian R, Littleton MA. Intention to try tobacco among middle school students in a predominantly rural environment of Central Appalachia. Subst Use Misuse. 2019;54(3):449-458. doi:10.1080/10826084.2018.1504080
 
19.
Gilman SE, Rende R, Boergers J, Abrams DB, Buka SL, Clark MA, et al. Parental smoking and adolescent smoking initiation: An intergenerational perspective on tobacco control. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):e274-e281. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2251
 
20.
O'Loughlin J, Karp I, Koulis T, Paradis G, DiFranza J. Determinants of first puff and daily cigarette smoking in adolescents. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(5):585-597. doi:10.1093/aje/kwp179
 
21.
Kandel DB, Griesler PC, Hu M-C. Intergenerational patterns of smoking and nicotine dependence among US adolescents. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(11):e63-e72. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302775
 
22.
Vassoler FM, Byrnes EM, Pierce RC. The impact of exposure to addictive drugs on future generations: Physiological and behavioral effects. Neuropharmacology. 2014;76:269-275. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.06.016
 
23.
Mamudu HM, Wang L, Owusu D, Robertson C, Collins C, Littleton MA. Prospective study of dual use of e-cigarettes and other tobacco products among school-going youth in rural Appalachian Tennessee. Ann Thorac Med. 2019;14(2):127‐133. doi:10.4103/atm.ATM_217_18
 
24.
Owusu D, Mamudu HM, Collins C, et al. The usage and associated factors of alternative tobacco products among school-going youth in Central Appalachia. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2019;30(1):249-264. doi:10.1353/hpu.2019.0019
 
25.
Krishnan-Sarin S, Morean ME, Camenga DR, Cavallo DA, Kong G. E-cigarette use among high school and middle school adolescents in Connecticut. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(7):810-818. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu243
 
26.
Chaffee BW, Watkins SL, Glantz SA. Electronic cigarette use and progression from experimentation to established smoking. Pediatrics. 2018;141(4):e20173594. doi:10.1542/peds.2017-3594
 
27.
Owusu D, Aibangbee J, Collins C, et al. The use of e-cigarettes among school-going adolescents in a predominantly rural environment of Central Appalachia. J Community Health. 2017;42(3):624‐631. doi:10.1007/s10900-016-0297-0
 
eISSN:2459-3087