4.5 Article

Flavored Cigar Smoking Among US Adults: Findings From the 2009-2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey

期刊

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 608-614

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/nts178

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Under its authority to regulate tobacco products, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration prohibited certain characterizing flavors in cigarettes in September 2009; however, flavored cigars are still permitted to be manufactured, distributed, and sold. This study assessed the prevalence and correlates of flavored cigar smoking among U.S. adults. Methods: Data were obtained from the 2009-2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey, a national landline and cell phone survey of adults aged >= 18 years old residing in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. National and state estimates of flavored cigar use were calculated overall and among current cigar smokers; national estimates were calculated by sex, age, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, annual household income, U.S. Census Region, and sexual orientation. Results: The national prevalence of flavored cigar smoking was 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.6%-3.1%; state range: 0.6%-5.7%) and was greater among those who were male, younger in age, non-Hispanic Other race, less educated, less wealthy, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT). Nationally, the prevalence of flavored cigar use among cigar smokers was 42.9% (95% CI = 40.1%-45.7%; state range: 11.1%-71.6%) and was greater among those who were female, younger in age, Hispanic, non-Hispanic Other race, less educated, less wealthy, and LGBT. Conclusions: More than two fifths of current cigar smokers report using flavored cigars. Disparities in flavored cigar use also exist across states and subpopulations. Efforts to curb flavored cigar smoking have the potential to reduce the prevalence of overall cigar smoking among U.S. adults, particularly among subpopulations with the greatest burden.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据