Racial and ethnic differences in current use of cigarettes, cigars, and hookahs among lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults.

Translational Tobacco Reduction Research Program, Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center and Prevention Research Center, West Virginia University, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA.
Nicotine & Tobacco Research (Impact Factor: 2.48). 01/2011; 13(6):487-91. DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntq261
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Research demonstrates that lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (i.e., LGBs or sexual minorities) smoke more than their heterosexual peers, but relatively less is known about the heterogeneity within LGB populations, namely racial/ethnic differences. Moreover, smoking research on sexual minorities has focused mainly on cigarette smoking, with little attention to other forms of smoking, such as hookahs/water pipes.
Using a large national sample of college students, we examined differences by race and sexual orientation in prevalence of smoking cigarettes, cigars/cigarillos/clove cigarettes, and hookahs.
All LGB racial groups had higher cigarette smoking prevalence than their heterosexual racial group counterparts. Significantly more White and Hispanic LGBs smoked hookahs when compared, respectively, with White and Hispanic heterosexuals.
Given the higher prevalence of multiple forms of smoking among sexual minorities, the heterogeneity within sexual minority populations and the nuances of multiple identities (i.e., racial, ethnic, and sexual minority), targeted-if not tailored-prevention and cessation efforts are needed to address smoking disparities in these diverse communities. Prevention, intervention, and epidemiological research on smoking behaviors among college attending young adults should take into account other forms of smoking, such as hookah use.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose To investigate change across development in two smoking outcomes (smoking status and rate), describe demographic differences in smoking, and longitudinally examine the effects of psychosocial variables on smoking (psychological distress, victimization, and social support) in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Methods Participants were 248 ethnically diverse LGBT youth (ages 16–20 years at baseline) from a longitudinal cohort study with six waves over 3.5 years. Baseline questionnaires included demographic variables and a measure of impulsivity, and longitudinal questionnaires included measures of cigarette smoking (status and average number of cigarettes smoked daily), LGBT-based victimization, psychological distress, and perceived social support. Analyses were conducted with hierarchical linear modeling. Results Males had higher odds of smoking and smoking rate than females, but females' smoking rate increased more rapidly over time. Psychological distress was associated with higher odds of smoking and smoking rate at the same wave, and it predicted smoking rate at the subsequent wave. LGBT victimization was associated with higher odds of smoking at the same wave and predicted smoking rate at the subsequent wave. Finally, significant other support predicted higher odds of smoking and smoking rate at the subsequent wave, but family support was negatively correlated with smoking rate at the same wave. Conclusions There are several viable avenues for the development of smoking prevention interventions for LGBT youth. To optimize the efficacy of prevention strategies, we must consider experiences with victimization, the impact of psychological distress, and optimizing support from families and romantic partners.
    Journal of Adolescent Health 01/2014; · 2.97 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature examining risk factors/correlates of cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay and bisexual (ie, sexual minority) populations. METHODS: Sets of terms relevant to sexual minority populations and cigarette smoking were used in a simultaneous search of 10 databases through EBSCOhost. The search was limited to the peer-reviewed literature up to January 2011, using no geographic or language limits. For inclusion, the paper was required to: (1) have been written in English, (2) have sexual minorities (defined by either attraction, behaviour, or identity) included in the study population and (3) have examined some form of magnitude of association for risk factors/correlates of any definition of cigarette smoking. A total of 386 abstracts were reviewed independently, with 26 papers meeting all inclusion criteria. Abstracts were reviewed and coded independently by authors JB and JGLL using nine codes derived from the inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Studies used various measures of sexual orientation and of smoking. Risk factors that could be considered unique to sexual minorities included internalised homophobia and reactions to disclosure of sexual orientation. Some studies also indicated common smoking risk factors experienced at higher rates among sexual minorities, including stress, depression, alcohol use and victimisation. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified risks that were associated with sexual minority status and common to the general population but experienced at potentially higher rates by sexual minorities. Government and foundation funds should be directed towards research on the origins of this disparity.
    Tobacco control 12/2011; · 3.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives. We examined sexual orientation disparities in cancer-related risk behaviors among adolescents. Methods. We pooled data from the 2005 and 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. We classified youths with any same-sex orientation as sexual minority and the remainder as heterosexual. We compared the groups on risk behaviors and stratified by gender, age (< 15 years and > 14 years), and race/ethnicity. Results. Sexual minorities (7.6% of the sample) reported more risk behaviors than heterosexuals for all 12 behaviors (mean = 5.3 vs 3.8; P < .001) and for each risk behavior: odds ratios (ORs) ranged from 1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2, 1.4) to 4.0 (95% CI = 3.6, 4.7), except for a diet low in fruit and vegetables (OR = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.5, 0.8). We found sexual orientation disparities in analyses by gender, followed by age, and then race/ethnicity; they persisted in analyses by gender, age, and race/ethnicity, although findings were nuanced. Conclusions. Data on cancer risk, morbidity, and mortality by sexual orientation are needed to track the potential but unknown burden of cancer among sexual minorities. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print December 12, 2013: e1-e10. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301506).
    American Journal of Public Health 12/2013; · 3.93 Impact Factor