4.1 Article

Prevalence and correlates of hookah use: a nationally representative sample of US adults ages 18-40 years old

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE
卷 42, 期 5, 页码 567-576

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/00952990.2016.1167214

关键词

Hookah use; water pipe tobacco smoking; prevalence rate; epidemiology

资金

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA020892] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hookah use may be increasing among adults in the US. Information on the prevalence and correlates of hookah use in the adult population is relatively limited. Objectives: To determine the prevalence of current (past 30-day) and lifetime use of hookah among adults ages 18-40 in the US and to investigate the socio-demographic characteristics associated with lifetime use. Methods: Data were drawn from the Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey data from May 2010, August 2010, and January 2011 (n = 85,545). Logistic regression was used to examine various demographic correlates of lifetime hookah use. Results: Among 18-40 year olds, the past month prevalence rate of hookah use was 0.6% and the lifetime prevalence rate of hookah use was 3.9%. Being male, non-Hispanic white, having higher levels of educational attainment, having never been married, not having any children, earning less than $20,000 annually, residing in the Midwest or western US, being a student, and being a cigarette smoker were associated with increased likelihood of lifetime hookah use. The prevalence of hookah use among current, cigarette smokers was 7.9%, more than double that of the general adult population. Conclusions: Hookah use is significantly more common among cigarette smokers and among various demographic subgroups among general adult population. Given the risks associated with hookah and poly-tobacco use, targeted public health efforts are recommended. Additionally, health-care providers may consider expanding screening tests to include hookah use.

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

4.1
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