ArticleMSMR2024
Tobacco and nicotine use among active component U.S. military service members: a comparison of 2018 estimates from the Health Related Behaviors Survey and the Periodic Health Assessment.
Article in MSMR, 2024. 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.
- Prevention of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease in tactical athletes.American journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Review
- Article
- Prevalence of Use, Impact on Oral Health, and Knowledge Regarding Tobacco Smoking: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey in Military Marines.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Influenza-like illness in cigarette smokers and electronic-cigarette users: a secondary analysis from the PAIVED study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Tobacco Product Use and Type by Military Veteran Status: Findings from the National Health Interview Survey, 2021-2023.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared estimates of the prevalence of and risk factors for tobacco and nicotine use obtained from the 2018 Health Related Behaviors Survey (HRBS) and Periodic Health Assessment (PHA) survey. The HRBS and the PHA are important Department of Defense sources of data on health behavior collected from U.S. military service members. While their collection methods differ, some survey questions are similar, which provides an opportunity to compare survey estimates. Active duty service members consistently reported a much lower prevalence of all types of tobacco and nicotine use on the PHA compared to the HRBS: cigarettes (11.1% vs. 18.4%), e-cigarettes (7.3% vs. 16.2%), chewing tobacco (9.7% vs. 13.4%), any tobacco or nicotine use (25.3% vs. 37.8%), and use of 2 or more tobacco or nicotine products (5.8% vs. 17.4%). Associations between tobacco and nicotine use as well as demographic and other behavioral variables were fairly similar, including age, sex, education, race and ethnicity, rank, and alcohol use. The associations with service branch, body mass index, and sleep were inconsistent. This results of this study suggest that the PHA can provide timely information on trends in military tobacco and nicotine use over time, but much higher estimates from the confidential, voluntary HRBS reported in this study suggest that the command-directed PHA may substantially underestimate the prevalence of all types of tobacco and nicotine use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38621256PMC11023702What 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.