A comparison of classifications for geographic location and their associations with tobacco use among US adults

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Jenny E. Ozga PhD, Andrea Milstred PhD, Melissa D. Blank PhD, Mary Kay Rayens PhD, Brittney Keller-Hamilton PhD, Megan E. Roberts PhD, Seth Himelhoch MD, MPH, Cassandra A. Stanton PhD
{"title":"A comparison of classifications for geographic location and their associations with tobacco use among US adults","authors":"Jenny E. Ozga PhD,&nbsp;Andrea Milstred PhD,&nbsp;Melissa D. Blank PhD,&nbsp;Mary Kay Rayens PhD,&nbsp;Brittney Keller-Hamilton PhD,&nbsp;Megan E. Roberts PhD,&nbsp;Seth Himelhoch MD, MPH,&nbsp;Cassandra A. Stanton PhD","doi":"10.1111/jrh.70070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>This 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>With 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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Location 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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50060,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Health","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jrh.70070","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This 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.

Methods

Data 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.

Findings

With 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.

Conclusions

Location 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.

地理位置分类的比较及其与美国成年人吸烟的关系
本研究比较了在31,196名美国成年人的全国代表性样本中,两类乡村性及其与香烟、电子烟和无烟烟草(SLT)使用的关系。方法烟草与健康人群评价研究第1期资料。加权描述性统计和多变量logistic回归在不同的模型中评估了两类农村性是否与过去30天(P30D)香烟、电子烟或SLT的使用存在差异。分类为(1)美国人口普查局的城市/非城市分类;(2)国家教育统计中心(NCES)对城市/郊区/城镇/农村的分类。本研究是按照STROBE指南报道的。根据人口普查局的分类,79.3%的人在城市地区。按NCES分类,城市占34.3%,郊区占35.1%,城镇占9.4%,农村占21.1%。根据人口普查局的分类,非城市(与城市)居住与电子烟使用几率降低相关(AOR = 0.79;95% CI = 0.70-0.88),使用SLT的几率增加(AOR = 2.32;95% ci = 1.97-2.72)。在以城市为参照的NCES分类中,农村居民与电子烟使用几率降低相关(AOR = 0.77;95% ci = 0.75-0.98);both town (AOR = 2.16;95% CI = 1.69-2.78)和农村(AOR = 2.75;95% CI = 2.16, 3.48)与SLT使用几率增加相关。在两种分类中,地点与吸烟无关。结论:在调整后的模型中,地理位置与P30D电子烟和SLT的使用相似。使用具有更多类别的分类可能有助于了解烟草使用的细微位置差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Rural Health
Journal of Rural Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.10%
发文量
86
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Health, a quarterly journal published by the NRHA, offers a variety of original research relevant and important to rural health. Some examples include evaluations, case studies, and analyses related to health status and behavior, as well as to health work force, policy and access issues. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are welcome. Highest priority is given to manuscripts that reflect scholarly quality, demonstrate methodological rigor, and emphasize practical implications. The journal also publishes articles with an international rural health perspective, commentaries, book reviews and letters.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信