Cigarette smoking, e-cigarette use, and sexual identity among high school students in the USA
Although tobacco use has decreased in the general population in recent years, smoking remains high among subpopulations. This study examined whether sexual identity is associated with cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use among high school students. Data were drawn from the US Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (n = 28811). We grouped participants according to sexual identity status. Propensity score matching technique was used to address covariate imbalance among sexual identity groups. Subgroup analyses were performed for male and female students. Of the four sexual identity groups analyzed in this study, bisexual adolescents had significantly higher odds of cigarette smoking (cigarette smoking, OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.24–2.08; cigarette smoking for ≥ 10 days, OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.28–2.51; cigarette smoking for ≥ 20 days, OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.38–3.03). Further, in a sex-based subgroup analysis, results showed significant differences, with bisexual females more likely to smoke cigarettes and use e-cigarettes for ≥ 20 days compared with heterosexual female adolescents.
What is Known:
• Sexual minority groups face a disproportionate amount of stress and have a heightened risk of substance use.
• Methodological concerns exist in the extant literature, including limited data at the national level.
What is New:
• Propensity score matching was used to account for imbalances in sexual identity subgroups, and findings show significant heterogeneity in cigarette and e-cigarette use among sexual minority high school students.
• Sexual identity status is strongly associated with cigarette smoking and e-cigarette use, especially among bisexual identity female subgroup.
KeywordsMinority groups Sexual identity Lesbian Gay Bisexual Cigarette E-cigarette
SA conceptualized and designed the study, supervised all aspects of the study, contributed to the drafting of the manuscript, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. KL contributed to the drafting of the manuscript, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. LS conducted the data analysis, contributed to the drafting of the manuscript, critically reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 4.Hankey GJ (1999) Smoking and risk of stroke. J Cardiovasc Risk 6(4):207–211Google Scholar
- 6.Goniewicz ML, Knysak J, Gawron M, Kosmider L, Sobczak A, Kurek J, Prokopowicz A, Jablonska-Czapla M, Rosik-Dulewska C, Havel C, Jacob P III, Benowitz N (2014) Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tob Control 23(2):133–139. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859 Google Scholar
- 7.Polosa R, Morjaria JB, Prosperini U, Russo C, Pennisi A, Puleo R, Caruso M, Caponnetto P (2018) Health effects in COPD smokers who switch to electronic cigarettes: a retrospective-prospective 3-year follow-up. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis 13:2533–2542. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S161138 Google Scholar
- 9.Soneji S, Barrington-Trimis JL, Wills TA, Leventhal AM, Unger JB, Gibson LA, Yang JW, Primack BA, Andrews JA, Miech RA, Spindle TR, Dick DM, Eissenberg T, Hornik RC, Dang R, Sargent JD (2017) Association between initial use of e-cigarettes and subsequent cigarette smoking among adolescents and young adults. JAMA Pediatr 171(8):788–797. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.1488 Google Scholar
- 10.Bullen C, McRobbie H, Thornley S, Glover M, Lin R, Laugesen M (2010) Effect of an electronic nicotine delivery device (e cigarette) on desire to smoke and withdrawal, user preferences and nicotine delivery: randomised cross-over trial. Tob Control 19(2):98–103. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2009.031567 Google Scholar
- 12.Vansickel AR, Cobb CO, Weaver MF, Eissenberg TE (2010) A clinical laboratory model for evaluating the acute effects of electronic “cigarettes”: nicotine delivery profile and cardiovascular and subjective effects. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 19(8):1945–1953. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0288 Google Scholar
- 20.Agaku IT, King BA, Husten CG et al (2014) Tobacco product use among adults--United States, 2012-2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 63(25):542–547Google Scholar
- 21.Blosnich J, Lee JGL, Horn K (2013) A systematic review of the aetiology of tobacco disparities for sexual minorities. Tob Control 22(2):66–73. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050181 Google Scholar
- 22.Jamal A, Agaku IT, O’Connor E, King BA, Kenemer JB, Neff L (2014) Current cigarette smoking among adults-United States, 2005-2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 63(47):1108–1112Google Scholar
- 23.Kasza KA, Ambrose BK, Conway KP, Borek N, Taylor K, Goniewicz ML, Cummings KM, Sharma E, Pearson JL, Green VR, Kaufman AR, Bansal-Travers M, Travers MJ, Kwan J, Tworek C, Cheng YC, Yang L, Pharris-Ciurej N, van Bemmel DM, Backinger CL, Compton WM, Hyland AJ (2017) Tobacco-product use by adults and youths in the United States in 2013 and 2014. N Engl J Med 376(4):342–353. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1607538 Google Scholar
- 25.Offen N, Smith EA, Malone RE (2003) From adversary to target market: the ACT-UP boycott of Philip Morris. Tob Control 12(2):203–207Google Scholar
- 29.Sheahan SL, Garrity TF (1992) Stress and tobacco addiction. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 4(3):111–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.1992.tb00821.x Google Scholar
- 31.McCabe SE, Hughes TL, Bostwick W, Boyd CJ (2005) Assessment of difference in dimensions of sexual orientation: implications for substance use research in a college-age population. J Stud Alcohol 66(5):620–629Google Scholar
- 37.Kann L, McManus T, Harris WA, Shanklin SL, Flint KH, Queen B, Lowry R, Chyen D, Whittle L, Thornton J, Lim C, Bradford D, Yamakawa Y, Leon M, Brener N, Ethier KA (2018) Youth risk behavior surveillance - United States, 2017. MMWR Surveill Summ 67(8):1–114. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6708a1 Google Scholar
- 38.D’Agostino RB (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17(19):2265–2281Google Scholar
- 44.Grana R, Benowitz N, Glantz SA (2014) E-cigarettes: a scientific review. Circulation. 129(19):1972–1986Google Scholar
- 47.Emory K, Buchting FO, Trinidad DR, Vera L, Emery SL (2018) Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) view it differently than non-LGBT: exposure to tobacco-related couponing, e-cigarette advertisements, and anti-tobacco messages on social and traditional media. Nicotine Tob Res 21:513–522. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nty049 Google Scholar