Adult use of cigars, little cigars, and cigarillos in Cuyahoga County, Ohio: A cross-sectional study

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Prevention Research Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research (Impact Factor: 3.3). 04/2010; 12(6):669-73. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntq057
Source: PubMed


Adult use of cigars, cigarillos, and little cigars has increased over the past two decades; however, little is known about the characteristics of the users.
The data were derived from 5 years (2003-2007) of the Cuyahoga County Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, a random digit-dialed telephone survey conducted by ICF Macro International, based on the survey and methods of the Ohio BRFSS.
Results indicate that the prevalence of current cigarette smoking across the 5 years was 23.1%. Cigar use and little cigar use were reported by 4.3% and 3.3% of respondents, respectively. Compared with cigarette users, cigar and little cigar users were far more likely to report multiple product use (12.8% vs. 63.9% and 80.5%, respectively). Cigar and little cigar users differed from cigarette smokers in demographic profile and patterns of multiple product use.
Black and lower income adults were significantly more likely to report use of little cigars and use of multiple products. These disparities potentially contribute to the disproportionate rates of tobacco-related illnesses and underrepresentation of low-income and minority populations in tobacco use prevalence rates.

Download full-text


Available from: Erika S Trapl, Jul 25, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inclusion of brand-specific examples (BE) in health surveys assessing lifetime and current cigar use has been shown to impact response rates. A split sample experimental design was used to investigate whether these rates are consistent by race, gender, and geographic locale. The 2009 Cuyahoga County Youth Risk Behavior Survey was conducted among 20 randomly selected high schools. Two versions of the survey were created; the first included items assessing lifetime and current cigar use with no brand-specific examples (NBE) while the second included BE in the items assessing cigar use. Both survey versions were distributed randomly within selected classrooms in participating schools. Within the City, both White and Black BE respondents reported higher lifetime cigar product use prevalence and current cigar product use compared to the NBE group; however, the difference was only significant among Black respondents (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45, 95% CI 1.02-2.06). In the Outer Ring, White BE respondents were significantly less likely to report lifetime cigar use (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54 - 0.98) and current cigar use (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44-0.99) when compared with White NBE respondents. Inclusion of BE in current measures of cigar product use may improve product use estimates in at-risk groups. However, better estimation of cigar product use may be accomplished by creating additional items to assess the use of subtypes of cigars.
    Nicotine & Tobacco Research 03/2011; 13(4):291-5. DOI:10.1093/ntr/ntq247 · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined patterns in cigar use among young adults, aged 18-25 years, focusing on race/ethnicity and brand. We conducted a secondary data analysis of cross-sectional waves of the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002-2008, using multivariate logistic regression to assess time trends in past 30 days cigar use, past 30 days use of a "top 5" cigar brand, cigar use intensity, and age at first cigar use. Cigar use has increased among White non-Hispanic men aged 18 to 25 years, from 12.0% in 2002 to 12.7% in 2008. Common predictors of all outcomes included male gender and past 30 days use of cigarettes, marijuana, and blunts. Additional predictors of past 30 days cigar and "top 5" brand use included younger age, non-Hispanic Black or White race, lower income, and highest level of risk behavior. College enrollment predicted intensity of use and "top 5" brand use. Recent legislative initiatives have changed how cigars are marketed and may affect consumption. National surveys should include measures of cigar brand and little cigar and cigarillo use to improve cigar use estimates.
    American Journal of Public Health 08/2011; 101(10):1955-62. DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2011.300209 · 4.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: As the third most popular website in the world, messages embedded in the video-sharing site, YouTube, have the potential to influence tobacco-related attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. Despite the growing number of videos depicting little cigars/cigarillos (LCCs), there has been no examination of the portrayal of these products on YouTube. Methods: Researchers identified up to the top 20 search results on YouTube by relevance and view count for the following search terms: 'little cigars', 'cigarillos', 'Black and Mild', 'Swisher Sweets', 'White owl', 'Garcia y Vega', and 'Winchester'. Reviewers rated whether videos were 'pro', 'anti' or 'neutral' to the use of LCCs, and documented statistics on the reach and viewer demographics. Several main themes around LCCs were noted, as was video quality (amateur vs professional) and demographics of video participants. Results: Of the 196 videos retrieved, only 56 were unique, eligible videos. The majority of these (n=43) were 'pro' LCCs, 11 were 'neutral', and only two were 'anti' LCCs. Videos were primarily viewed by males in the USA and Canada and most were amateur. Common themes included where to purchase LCCs, their candy flavours, and that they are cheap or cheaper than cigarettes, and 'smooth'. Conclusions: The vast majority of information on YouTube about LCCs promotes their use. It is critical to monitor content on LCCs posted on YouTube, and develop appropriate health messages to counter pro-LCC content, and appropriately inform potential consumers of the harms associated with their use.
    Tobacco control 10/2012; 23(1). DOI:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050562 · 5.93 Impact Factor
Show more