ArticleTobacco regulatory science2018
Cigarette and Smokeless Tobacco Perception Differences of Rural Male Youth.
Article in Tobacco regulatory science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and predictors of chronic disease among rural and medically underserved populations using smokeless tobacco.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Socioecological Predictors of Change in Adolescent Tobacco Use Across Waves 1-4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison between Smokers and Smokeless Tobacco Users in Their Past Attempts and Intentions to Quit: Analysis of Two Rounds of a National Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding rural tobacco use disparities.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2021Review
- Cigarette smokers' concurrent use of smokeless tobacco: dual use patterns and nicotine exposure.Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Exposure to a Tobacco-Specific Carcinogen Among Adolescent Smokeless Tobacco Users in Rural California, United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCompare cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) perceptions within a youth population where ST use is common.
methodsMale baseball players (N = 594) at 36 rural high schools in California rated separately 20 potential risks or benefits associated with cigarettes or ST, along with global harm ratings. Informed by principal components analysis, 3 composite categories were created: oral/rule-breaking risks (eg, mouth cancer, getting in trouble), systemic risks (eg, heart attack), and benefits (eg, relaxation). Standardized composite scores and harm ratings were compared by product and by tobacco use status.
resultsCigarettes were perceived as likely to impart oral/rule-breaking risks and systemic risks, unlikely to cause benefits, and as very harmful overall. ST was perceived similarly as cigarettes regarding oral/rule-breaking risks, but less likely to cause systemic risks, and more beneficial. Most participants rated cigarettes as more harmful than ST. Similar patterns existed in all tobacco use groups, including non-users and dual-users.
conclusionsIn this population, cigarettes were perceived as very harmful. ST was perceived similarly to cigarettes only for some risks and as less harmful overall. Communication for rural adolescents should consider multifaceted aspects of ST risk.
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.