4.1 Article

Trends in Tobacco Use among Young Adults Presenting for Military Service in the United States Air Force between 2013 and 2018

Journal

SUBSTANCE USE & MISUSE
Volume 56, Issue 3, Pages 370-376

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10826084.2020.1868517

Keywords

Military; tobacco prevalence; non-cigarette tobacco use; young adults

Funding

  1. National Institute of Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health [R01DA036510, R01DA037273, R01DA043468]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The US military has historically higher tobacco use compared to civilians, and tobacco use increases following enlistment. While the military is vulnerable to tobacco use, current surveillance of tobacco among this high-risk population is lacking. Methods: Recently enlisted Airmen (N = 43,597) between 2013 and 2018 were asked about tobacco use prior to enlistment across ten products: (1) cigarettes/roll your own tobacco, (2) smokeless tobacco/snus, (3) cigars, cigarillos/little cigars, (4) hookah/pipe, and (5) e-cigarettes. Results: Hookah/pipe use, cigarettes/roll your own, smokeless tobacco/snus, and cigars/little cigars/cigarillos use decreased significantly between 2013 and 2018, while the prevalence of e-cigarette use increased (p's < 0.0001). The relationships between the time and each tobacco product(s) use outcomes were influenced differently by different age, race, education and marital status. Conclusion: While e-cigarette use has increased in the civilian sector, the use of e-cigarettes among new recruits increased much more drastically (i.e. prevalence 15.3% in 2018). Further, demographic characteristics influenced tobacco trends; specifically, recruits of racial minorities increased their use of e-cigarettes over the past five years faster than Whites. Of concern is what impact this dramatic increase in e-cigarette use will have on overall health and later initiation of combustible tobacco products in the military.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available