4.7 Article

Water-Pipe Smoking Among North American Youths

Journal

PEDIATRICS
Volume 125, Issue 6, Pages 1184-1189

Publisher

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-2335

Keywords

water-pipe; tobacco; smoking; youth; correlates; substance use

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Cancer Society [010271, 017435]
  2. Health Research Foundation of Quebec

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to identify the sociodemographic characteristics of water-pipe users in a North American context and to describe concurrent psychoactive substance use. METHODS: Data on sociodemographic characteristics, water-pipe smoking, and use of other psychoactive substances were collected in 2007 through mailed self-report questionnaires completed by 871 young adults, 18 to 24 years of age, who were participating in the Nicotine Dependence in Teens Study, a longitudinal investigation of the natural history of nicotine dependence among adolescents in Montreal, Canada. Independent sociodemographic correlates of water-pipe use were identified in multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Previous-year water-pipe use was reported by 23% of participants. Younger age, male gender, speaking English, not living with parents, and higher household income independently increased the odds of water-pipe use. Water-pipe use was markedly higher among participants who had smoked cigarettes, had used other tobacco products, had drunk alcohol, had engaged in binge drinking, had smoked marijuana, or had used other illicit drugs in the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: Water-pipe users may represent an advantaged group of young people with the leisure time, resources, and opportunity to use water-pipes. Evidence-based public health and policy interventions are required to equip the public to make informed decisions about water-pipe use. Pediatrics 2010; 125: 1184-1189

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available