Hookah Use Among New Jersey Youth: Associations and Changes Over Time
ABSTRACT To assess hookah use among youth for prevalence, associations, and changes over time.
Data from the 2008 and 2010 New Jersey Youth Tobacco Survey were analyzed to examine hookah smoking by gender, race/ethnicity, and grade level.
Prevalence of hookah use increased significantly among black and Hispanic students. Frequency of use was generally occasional. In multivariate models, Asian race; Hispanic ethnicity; and concurrent use of cigarettes, cigars, and bidis predicted current hookah smoking.
Prevalence of hookah use is rising among New Jersey's youth, particularly among minority populations, representing a growing public health concern.
- SourceAvailable from: sciencedirect.com[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Increasing diversity of the tobacco product landscape, including electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), hookah, snus, and dissolvable tobacco products (dissolvables), raises concerns about the public health impact of these non-conventional tobacco products among youth. Purpose This study assessed awareness, ever use, and current use of non-conventional tobacco products among U.S. students in 2012, overall and by demographic and tobacco use characteristics. Methods Data from the 2012 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative survey of U.S. middle and high school students, were analyzed in 2013. Prevalence of awareness, ever use, and current use of e-cigarettes, hookah, snus, and dissolvables were calculated overall and by sex, school level, race/ethnicity, and conventional tobacco product use, including cigarettes, cigars, or smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco, snuff, or dip). Results Overall, 50.3% of students were aware of e-cigarettes; prevalence of ever and current use of e-cigarettes was 6.8% and 2.1%, respectively. Awareness of hookah was 41.2% among all students, and that of ever and current use were 8.9% and 3.6%, respectively. Overall awareness; ever; and current use of snus (32%, 5.3%, 1.7%, respectively) and dissolvables (19.3%, 2.0%, 0.7%, respectively) were generally lower than those of e-cigarettes or hookah. Conventional tobacco product users were more likely to be aware of and to use non-conventional tobacco products. Conclusions Many U.S. students are aware of and use non-conventional tobacco products. Evidence-based interventions should be implemented to prevent and reduce all tobacco use among youth.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 08/2014; 47(2):S36–S52. DOI:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.003 · 4.28 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Rationale Hookah smoking continues to be a popular form of tobacco use, especially among college students. Although hookahs are commonly used to smoke tobacco, anecdotal evidence suggests other substances, including herbal shisha, marijuana and hashish may be used. However, little is known about the variety of substances smoked in hookahs, or correlates associated with different substances smoked. Methods In fall 2010, 3,447 students from 8 colleges in N.C. completed an online survey. Results 44% of students reported ever smoking tobacco from a hookah. Of those ever users, 90% reported smoking flavored tobacco in a hookah, 45% marijuana, 37% herbal (non-tobacco) shisha, and 18% hashish. Latent class analysis revealed two distinct classes. The most prevalent class (77%) primarily smoked flavored tobacco, with minimal use of herbal shisha and marijuana and virtually no use of hashish. The second class (23%) primarily smoked marijuana, hashish and flavored tobacco with moderate use of herbal shisha. Logistic regression analysis adjusting for clustering within-schools revealed that males, illicit drug users, daily, nondaily and former cigarette smokers and those whose mothers had higher levels of education were significantly more likely to be in the second class compared to the first. Conclusions Rates of lifetime use of hookah were high in our sample of college students. While the majority of hookah users smoked tobacco in hookahs, they also smoked other substances, notably marijuana and herbal shisha. Prevention efforts should recognize that students are using hookahs to smoke a variety of substances.Addictive behaviors 07/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.03.020 · 2.44 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Waterpipe tobacco smoking is receiving growing attention due to accumulating evidence suggesting increasing prevalence in some populations and deleterious health effects. Nevertheless, the relationship between waterpipe and cigarette smoking remain unknown, particularly in low and middle income countries. We analysed waterpipe and cigarette smoking using data from Global Adult Tobacco Survey, a household survey of adults aged ≥15 years conducted between 2008-2010 in LMICs. Factors associated with waterpipe and cigarette use were assessed using multiple logistic regression. Factors associated with the quantity of waterpipe and cigarette smoking were assessed using log-linear regression models. After adjusting for age, gender, residence, education, occupation and smokeless tobacco use, waterpipe smoking was significantly higher among cigarette users than in non-cigarette users in India (5.6% vs. 0.6%, AOR 13.12, 95% CI 7.41-23.23) and Russia (6.7% vs. 0.2%, AOR 27.73, 95% CI 11.41-67.43), but inversely associated in Egypt (2.6% vs. 3.4%, AOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.15-0.30) and not associated in Vietnam (13.3% vs. 4.7%, AOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.74-1.23). Compared to non-cigarette smokers, waterpipe smokers who also used cigarettes had more waterpipe smoking sessions per week in Russia (1.3 vs. 2.9, beta coefficient 0.31, 95% CI 0.06, 0.57), but less in Egypt (18.2 vs. 10.7, beta coefficient -0.45, 95% CI -0.73, -0.17) and Vietnam (102.0 vs. 79.3, beta coefficient -0.31, 95% CI -0.56, -0.06) and similar amounts in India (29.4 vs. 32.6, beta coefficient -0.12, 95% CI -0.46, 0.22). Waterpipe smoking is low in most LMICs but important country-level differences in use, including concurrent cigarette smoking, should be taken into account when designing and evaluating tobacco control interventions.PLoS ONE 03/2014; 9(3):e93097. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0093097 · 3.53 Impact Factor