4.4 Article

Patterns of menthol cigarette use among current smokers, overall and within demographic strata, based on data from four US government surveys

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 70, 期 1, 页码 189-196

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.06.018

关键词

Cigarette; Menthol; Preference; Demographics; Gender; Race/ethnicity; Current age category

资金

  1. RAI Services Company (Winston-Salem, NC, USA)
  2. ENVIRON International Corporation (Amherst, MA, USA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, National Health Interview Survey and Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey provide estimates of the proportions of U.S. smokers who currently use menthol cigarettes, overall and within demographic strata. Among adult past-month, regular and daily smokers, menthol cigarette use ranges from 26% to 30%, with statistically higher proportions of female versus male smokers (8-11 percentage points higher) currently using menthol cigarettes. Compared to adult smokers overall, statistically higher proportions of non-Hispanic Black smokers (72-79%) and statistically lower proportions of non-Hispanic White smokers (19-22%) currently use menthol cigarettes, with no differences among smokers of other race/ethnicity groups (18-20% to 28-30%, depending on the survey). Higher proportions of younger adult past-month, regular and daily smokers (aged 18-25 years) currently use menthol cigarettes compared to older adult smokers (aged 26-29 years and/or >= 30 years); however, differences are small in magnitude, with the vast majority of adult smokers (70-75%) who currently use menthol cigarettes being aged >= 30 years. Comparisons between youth and adult smokers are provided, although data for youth smokers are less available and provide less consistent patterns of menthol cigarette use. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.4
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