Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use

Implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions

Robert Klesges, Jon O. Ebbert, Glen D. Morgan, Deborah Sherrill-Mittleman, Taghrid Asfar, Gerald Talcott, Margaret DeBon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

41 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Concomitant use of two forms of tobacco is an increasing public health concern, yet there is little consensus regarding a consistent definition of so-called "dual use." We defined dual use as cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) consumption with either product used daily or nondaily. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 36,013 Air Force recruits. We categorized dual tobacco use across 2 dimensions, type of tobacco products (cigarettes, ST, or others), and the frequency of use (daily vs. nondaily). We determined how varying the definition impacted the prevalence estimates and evaluated the prevalence estimate based on our recommended definition of dual use. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk profile of dual users of ST and cigarettes versus mono users of ST and mono users of cigarettes. Results: Varying definitions of dual use vary prevalence estimates 50-fold (0.5%-25.3%). Including only ST and cigarettes narrows the prevalence estimate to less than 4-fold (2.0%-9.7%). Dual users are more likely to be young Caucasian males, with lower education, and from families with relatively higher incomes. Compared with mono users, dual users of cigarettes and ST have a distinct pattern of risk profiles. Conclusions: Depending on the definition of dual use, markedly different prevalence and risk profiles are observed. Dual users of ST and cigarettes are a unique group of tobacco users. We propose a common definition of dual use to advance our understanding of this unique group.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)523-531
Number of pages9
JournalNicotine and Tobacco Research
Volume13
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 15 2011

Fingerprint

Smokeless Tobacco
Tobacco Use
Tobacco Products
Tobacco
Consensus
Public Health
Logistic Models
Air
Regression Analysis
Education

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Klesges, R., Ebbert, J. O., Morgan, G. D., Sherrill-Mittleman, D., Asfar, T., Talcott, G., & DeBon, M. (2011). Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use: Implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 13(7), 523-531. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntr032

Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use : Implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions. / Klesges, Robert; Ebbert, Jon O.; Morgan, Glen D.; Sherrill-Mittleman, Deborah; Asfar, Taghrid; Talcott, Gerald; DeBon, Margaret.

In: Nicotine and Tobacco Research, Vol. 13, No. 7, 15.07.2011, p. 523-531.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Klesges, R, Ebbert, JO, Morgan, GD, Sherrill-Mittleman, D, Asfar, T, Talcott, G & DeBon, M 2011, 'Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use: Implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions', Nicotine and Tobacco Research, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 523-531. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntr032
Klesges, Robert ; Ebbert, Jon O. ; Morgan, Glen D. ; Sherrill-Mittleman, Deborah ; Asfar, Taghrid ; Talcott, Gerald ; DeBon, Margaret. / Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use : Implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions. In: Nicotine and Tobacco Research. 2011 ; Vol. 13, No. 7. pp. 523-531.
@article{00b56977242c4c8198cffc31a278e57d,
title = "Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use: Implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions",
abstract = "Introduction: Concomitant use of two forms of tobacco is an increasing public health concern, yet there is little consensus regarding a consistent definition of so-called {"}dual use.{"} We defined dual use as cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) consumption with either product used daily or nondaily. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 36,013 Air Force recruits. We categorized dual tobacco use across 2 dimensions, type of tobacco products (cigarettes, ST, or others), and the frequency of use (daily vs. nondaily). We determined how varying the definition impacted the prevalence estimates and evaluated the prevalence estimate based on our recommended definition of dual use. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk profile of dual users of ST and cigarettes versus mono users of ST and mono users of cigarettes. Results: Varying definitions of dual use vary prevalence estimates 50-fold (0.5{\%}-25.3{\%}). Including only ST and cigarettes narrows the prevalence estimate to less than 4-fold (2.0{\%}-9.7{\%}). Dual users are more likely to be young Caucasian males, with lower education, and from families with relatively higher incomes. Compared with mono users, dual users of cigarettes and ST have a distinct pattern of risk profiles. Conclusions: Depending on the definition of dual use, markedly different prevalence and risk profiles are observed. Dual users of ST and cigarettes are a unique group of tobacco users. We propose a common definition of dual use to advance our understanding of this unique group.",
author = "Robert Klesges and Ebbert, {Jon O.} and Morgan, {Glen D.} and Deborah Sherrill-Mittleman and Taghrid Asfar and Gerald Talcott and Margaret DeBon",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1093/ntr/ntr032",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "523--531",
journal = "Nicotine and Tobacco Research",
issn = "1462-2203",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use

T2 - Implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions

AU - Klesges, Robert

AU - Ebbert, Jon O.

AU - Morgan, Glen D.

AU - Sherrill-Mittleman, Deborah

AU - Asfar, Taghrid

AU - Talcott, Gerald

AU - DeBon, Margaret

PY - 2011/7/15

Y1 - 2011/7/15

N2 - Introduction: Concomitant use of two forms of tobacco is an increasing public health concern, yet there is little consensus regarding a consistent definition of so-called "dual use." We defined dual use as cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) consumption with either product used daily or nondaily. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 36,013 Air Force recruits. We categorized dual tobacco use across 2 dimensions, type of tobacco products (cigarettes, ST, or others), and the frequency of use (daily vs. nondaily). We determined how varying the definition impacted the prevalence estimates and evaluated the prevalence estimate based on our recommended definition of dual use. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk profile of dual users of ST and cigarettes versus mono users of ST and mono users of cigarettes. Results: Varying definitions of dual use vary prevalence estimates 50-fold (0.5%-25.3%). Including only ST and cigarettes narrows the prevalence estimate to less than 4-fold (2.0%-9.7%). Dual users are more likely to be young Caucasian males, with lower education, and from families with relatively higher incomes. Compared with mono users, dual users of cigarettes and ST have a distinct pattern of risk profiles. Conclusions: Depending on the definition of dual use, markedly different prevalence and risk profiles are observed. Dual users of ST and cigarettes are a unique group of tobacco users. We propose a common definition of dual use to advance our understanding of this unique group.

AB - Introduction: Concomitant use of two forms of tobacco is an increasing public health concern, yet there is little consensus regarding a consistent definition of so-called "dual use." We defined dual use as cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) consumption with either product used daily or nondaily. Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 36,013 Air Force recruits. We categorized dual tobacco use across 2 dimensions, type of tobacco products (cigarettes, ST, or others), and the frequency of use (daily vs. nondaily). We determined how varying the definition impacted the prevalence estimates and evaluated the prevalence estimate based on our recommended definition of dual use. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk profile of dual users of ST and cigarettes versus mono users of ST and mono users of cigarettes. Results: Varying definitions of dual use vary prevalence estimates 50-fold (0.5%-25.3%). Including only ST and cigarettes narrows the prevalence estimate to less than 4-fold (2.0%-9.7%). Dual users are more likely to be young Caucasian males, with lower education, and from families with relatively higher incomes. Compared with mono users, dual users of cigarettes and ST have a distinct pattern of risk profiles. Conclusions: Depending on the definition of dual use, markedly different prevalence and risk profiles are observed. Dual users of ST and cigarettes are a unique group of tobacco users. We propose a common definition of dual use to advance our understanding of this unique group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79959562816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79959562816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ntr/ntr032

DO - 10.1093/ntr/ntr032

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 523

EP - 531

JO - Nicotine and Tobacco Research

JF - Nicotine and Tobacco Research

SN - 1462-2203

IS - 7

ER -