ArticlePreventive medicine2021
Latent class analysis of use frequencies for multiple tobacco products in US adults.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Latent transition analysis of use frequencies for multiple nicotine and tobacco products among US adults.Addictive behaviors · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Assessment of Association Between Tobacco Use and Tobacco Dependence Among Adults: Latent Class Analysis of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study Waves 1-4.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024Article
- Patterns of cigarette and e-cigarette use among UK adolescents: a latent class analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study.European journal of public health · 2023Article
- Latent Classes of Tobacco and Cannabis Use among Youth and Young Adults in the United States.Substance use & misuse · 2023Article
- Profiles of tobacco product use and related consumer characteristics in the US and Israel: A multiple-group latent class analysis.Global public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A persistent challenge is characterizing patterns of tobacco use in terms of product combinations and frequency. Using Wave 4 (2016-17) Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study adult data, we conducted latent class analyses (LCA) of past 30-day frequency of use for 9 tobacco products. One-step LCA with joint multinomial logistic regression models compared sociodemographic factors between users (n = 13,716) and non-users (n = 17,457), and between latent classes of users. We accounted for survey design and weights. Our analyses identified 6 classes: in addition to non-users (C0: 75.7%), we found 5 distinct latent classes of users: daily exclusive cigarette users (C1: 15.5%); occasional cigarette and polytobacco users (C2: 3.8%); frequent e-product and occasional cigarette users (C3: 2.2%); daily smokeless tobacco (SLT) and infrequent cigarette users (C4: 2.0%); and occasional cigar users (C5: 0.8%). Compared to C1: C2 and C3 had higher odds of being male (versus female), younger (especially 18-24 versus 55 years), and having higher education; C2 had higher, while C3 and C4 had lower, odds of being a racial/ethnic minority (versus Non-Hispanic White); C4 and C5 had much higher odds of being male (versus female) and heterosexual (versus sexual minority) and having higher income; and C5 had higher odds of college or more education. We identified three classes of daily or frequent users of a primary product (cigarettes, SLT or e-products) and two classes of occasional users (cigarettes, cigars and polytobacco). Sociodemographic differences in class membership may influence tobacco-related health disparities associated with specific patterns of use.
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.