4.5 Review

Tobacco use among sexual minorities in the USA, 1987 to May 2007: a systematic review

期刊

TOBACCO CONTROL
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 275-282

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/tc.2008.028241

关键词

-

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation [053311]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This paper examines the prevalence of tobacco use among sexual minorities in the US through a systematic review of literature from 1987 to May 2007. Methods: Seven databases were searched for peer-reviewed research (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library via Wiley InterScience, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Health Source: Nursing/Academic, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science, PsycINFO via EBSCO Host and PubMed). No language restrictions were used. Abstracts were identified in the literature search (n = 734) and were independently read and coded for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers. When agreement was not reached, a third reviewer acted as arbitrator. Abstracts were included if they presented data collected in the US from 1987 to May 2007 and reported prevalence or correlation of tobacco use with sexual minority status. Studies reporting data from HIV-positive samples were excluded. The identified articles (n = 46) were independently read by two reviewers who recorded key outcome measures, including prevalence and/or odds ratios of tobacco use, sample size and domain of sexuality (identity, behaviour, or desire). Factors relating to study design and methodology were used to assess study quality according to nine criteria. Results: In the 42 included studies, 119 measures of tobacco prevalence or association were reported. The available evidence points to disparities in smoking among sexual minorities that are significantly higher than among the general population. Conclusions: Ongoing, targeted interventions addressing smoking among sexual minorities are warranted in tobacco control programs.

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