ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2016
The Case to Include Brand of Moist Snuff in Health Surveys.
Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Cigarette and Smokeless Tobacco Markets in Texas Relative to the United States.Tobacco regulatory science · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBrand of smokeless tobacco was added to the most recent Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS), but deleted from the Centers for Disease Control's National Adult Tobacco Survey. The objective of this study was to assess the utility of brand in distinguishing users of moist snuff.
methodsThe sample consisted of participants from the 2010-2011 TUS-CPS who reported having used one of 14 brands of moist snuff in the past month (n = 2334). The brands were categorized into one of three types: snus, discount snuff, premium snuff. Multinomial logistic regression was employed for testing for associations between brand type and a series of demographic and tobacco use measures.
resultsFemales, metropolitan residents, current smokers, and moderate users of snuff had significantly greater odds of using snus relative to premium snuff in the adjusted model (P < .001). Frequent users of snuff (eg, daily users), current smokers, young adults, participants with low household income, and those exhibiting dependence on nicotine had greater odds of using discount versus premium snuff. Separate analyses among current smokers (n = 470) and former smokers (n = 70) revealed positive associations between smoking cessation attempts and smokers' switch to discount snuff.
conclusionsDifferences among the three categories of snuff users are likely attributed to variations in marketing campaigns. The differences are sufficient to warrant inclusion of snuff brand in health surveys because brand type could serve as a proxy measure for snuff use and dependence. IMPLICATIONS: Inclusion of brand of moist snuff in health surveys will enable researchers to categorize snuff users by brand type. Findings from this study indicate that brand type, defined according to cost (ie, discount vs. premium brands) and type of preferred snuff (ie, snus vs. other moist snuff), can distinguish snuff users by various demographic and tobacco use measures. Consequently, categorization by brand type could be used as a proxy measure for studies whose surveys do not include detailed information on snuff use and behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.