ArticleThe Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association2025
A comparison of classifications for geographic location and their associations with tobacco use among US adults.
Article in The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study compared two classifications of rurality and their associations with cigarette, e-cigarette, and smokeless tobacco (SLT) use among a nationally representative sample of 31,196 US adults.
methodsData from Wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. Weighted descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regressions assessed whether two classifications of rurality were differentially associated with past 30-day (P30D) cigarette, e-cigarette, or SLT use in separate models. Classifications were (1) the US Census Bureau's classification as urban/non-urban; and (2) the National Center for Education Statistic (NCES)'s classification as urban/suburban/town/rural. This study is reported in accordance with STROBE guidelines.
findingsWith the Census Bureau classification, 79.3% were in urban areas. With the NCES classification, 34.3% were in urban, 35.1% in suburban, 9.4% in town, and 21.1% in rural areas. With the Census Bureau classification, non-urban (vs. urban) residence was associated with reduced odds of e-cigarette use (AOR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.70-0.88) and increased odds of SLT use (AOR = 2.32; 95% CI = 1.97-2.72). With the NCES classification with urban as reference, rural residence was associated with reduced odds of e-cigarette use (AOR = 0.77; 95% CI = 0.75-0.98); both town (AOR = 2.16; 95% CI = 1.69-2.78) and rural (AOR = 2.75; 95% CI = 2.16, 3.48) were associated with increased odds of SLT use. Location was not associated with cigarette use for either classification.
conclusionsLocation was similarly associated with P30D e-cigarette and SLT use across both classifications in adjusted models. The use of classifications with more categories may be beneficial to understand nuanced location differences in tobacco 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.