Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups African Americans American Indians and Alaska Natives Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Hispanics A Report of the Surgeon General DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office on Smoking and Health Suggested Citation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Tobmx~ Usr Among U.S. Racinl/Ethic Milmrity Group-Africarl A~~wrimm, Aurerknr~ Iudinrls nud Alnsh7 Nntiws, Asinrz Avwicam all[f Pn&c IsI~rzil~w; ~7nd His~~o~~ics: A Rcyrt (?f flw SLI~L'OII Gtwrml. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smok- ing and Health, 1998. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washing- ton, D.C., 20402, S/N 017-001-00527-4. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WASHINGTON. D c 20201 The Honorable Newt Gingrich Speaker of the House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to transmit to the Congress the Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking, entitled Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups. This report is mandated by Section 8(a) of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-222) and includes the health effects of smokeless tobacco products, as mandated by Section 8(a) of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-252). The report was prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is the first Surgeon General's report to focus on tobacco use among four U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups: African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. It provides a single, comprehensive source of data on each racial/ethnic group's patterns of tobacco use, physical effects related to tobacco smoking and chewing, societal and psychosocial factors associated with tobacco use, and a selection of specific tobacco control programs. Armed with accurate data, health professionals can plan appropriate programs to address more effectively the health needs of these groups. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Certain racial/ethnic minority populations remain at high risk for using tobacco and often bear a disproportionate share of the human and economic cost of tobacco use. For instance, African Americans suffer the highest death rates from several diseases caused by smoking. Although some recent declines in lung cancer trends are encouraging, we have reason for great concern about recently reported increases in rates of smoking among African-American and Hispanic high school students. According to estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, over the next 50 years, the size of these four racial/ethnic minority groups is expected 'to increase dramatically, becoming almost half of the U.S. population by the year 2050. This projection clearly indicates the need to develop effective strategies to prevent tobacco-related disease and death in these four minority population groups. Enclosure THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WtTSHINGTON. D c 20201 The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr. President of the Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. President: I am pleased to transmit to the Congress the Surgeon General's report on the health consequences of smoking, entitled Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups. This report is mandated by Section 8(a) of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-222) and includes the health effects of smokeless tobacco products, as mandated by Section 8(a) of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-252). The report was prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is the first Surgeon General's report to focus on tobacco use among four U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups: African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. It provides a single, comprehensive source of data on each racial/ethnic group's patterns of tobacco use, physical effects related to tobacco smoking and chewing, societal and psychosocial factors associated with tobacco use, and a selection of specific tobacco control programs. Armed with accurate data, health professionals can plan appropriate programs to address more effectively the health needs of these groups. Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Certain racial/ethnic minority populations remain at high risk for using tobacco and often bear a disproportionate share of the human and economic cost of tobacco use. For instance, African Americans suffer the highest death rates from several diseases caused by smoking. Although some recent declines in lung cancer trends are encouraging, we have reason for great concern about recently reported increases in rates of smoking among African-American and Hispanic high school students. According to estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, over the next 50 years, the size of these four racial/ethnic minority groups is expected to increase dramatically, becoming almost half of the U.S. population by the year 2050. This projection clearly indicates the need to develop effective strategies to prevent tobacco-related disease and death in these four minority population groups. Enclosure Foreword The United States of America is a rich blend of cultures. This diversity demands close attention from the agencies and individuals responsible for pro- tecting the public's health. For too long in tobacco control, attention to diversity has been less consistent than is necessary for planning and developing effective health programs. As a result, we sometimes lack sufficient information on which to base tobacco control interventions. With this report, we begin to address such problems and point the way to filling these gaps in knowledge. Tobacco use causes devastating disease and premature death in every population in the United States. For four major U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups- African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics-patterns of tobacco use, adverse health effects, and the effectiveness of interventions need to be understood in terms of tobacco's cultural and socioeconomic effects on the members of these groups. This report describes the complex factors that play a part in the growing epidemic of diseases caused by tobacco use in these four groups. Since 1964 when the first Surgeon General's report on smoking and health was released, this report is the first to focus exclusively on tobacco use among members of these four racial/ethnic groups. Together these groups constitute about 25 percent of the U.S. population, and that proportion is growing rapidly. Public health programs must effectively address the health needs of this significant pro- portion of people. Such action is of paramount importance to reducing tobacco use in the United States and meeting national health objectives for the year 2000. We hope that this report will provide the basis for renewing our commitment to develop more effective tobacco control programs and policies for people of every racial and ethnic background. In addition, the report can be used by parents and communities as a tool to develop their own solutions. With continued diligence, we shall strive to reach and exceed whenever possible our stated health goals by the year 2000 and reduce the enormous health burden caused by tobacco products. Claire V. Broome, M.D. Acting Director Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Acting Administrator Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Preface from the Surgeor Gewral, U.S. Department of Health and Humau Services Effective strategies are needed to reduce tobacco use among members of U.S. racial/ethnic groups and thus diminish their burden of tobacco-related diseases and deaths. Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States. There is enormous potential to reduce heart disease, cancer, stroke, and respiratory disease among members of racial and ethnic groups, who make up the most rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population. This Surgeon General's report is the first to address the diverse tobacco control needs of the four major U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups-African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. This report is also the only single, comprehensive source of data on each group's patterns of tobacco use, physical effects related to tobacco smoking and chewing, and societal and psychosocial factors associated with tobacco use. The findings detailed in this report indicate that if tobacco use is not reduced among members of these four racial/ethnic groups, they will experience increas- ing morbidity and mortality from tobacco use. The toll is currently highest for African American adults. Findings also suggest that some close, long-term rela- tionships between tobacco companies and various racial/ethnic communities could hamper U.S. efforts to lower rates of tobacco use by the year 2000. Also notable is the support that members of racial/ethnic groups have shown for legislative efforts to control tobacco use, sales, advertising, and promotion. As this report goes to press, discouraging news comes from a report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey about tobacco use among African American and Hispanic high school students. Past-month smoking increased among African American students by 80 percent and among Hispanic students by 34 percent from 1991 through 1997. The consistent decline once seen among young African Americans has sharply reversed in recent years. Past-month smoking prevalence increased from 13 per- cent to 23 percent among African Americans and from 25 percent to 34 percent among Hispanics. Although cancer remains common in Americans of all racial and ethnic groups, the pattern of increasing lung cancer deaths in the 1970s and 1980s among African American, Hispanic, and some American Indian and Alaska Native subgroups has been halted or reversed for some groups from 1990 through 1995. Some en- couraging news from Carrcer kideuce arzd Mortality, 1973-l 995: A Report Card for the U.S. was just published by the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The report described lung cancer trend data from 1990 through 1995 for African Americans, Asian Ameri- cans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. Lung cancer death rates declined significantly for African American men and for Hispanic men and women from 1990 through 1995; death rates did not change significantly for African American women or for Asian American and Pacific Islander men or women. Although lung cancer trends may continue to decline among some racial/ethnic groups for sev- eral more years, recent increases in smoking prevalence among adolescent African Americans and Hispanics and among Asian American and Pacific Islander adoles- cent males, coupled with the lack of decline among American Indian and Alaska Native adults, do not bode well for long-term trends in lung cancer. One purpose of this report is to guide researchers in their future efforts to garner more information needed to develop effective prevention and control pro- grams. Several significant research questions need to be addressed. For example, why are African American youths smoking cigarettes in lower proportions than youths in other racial/ethnic groups ? How does acculturation affect patterns of tobacco use among immigrants to the United States? What are the differential effects of gender on tobacco use among members of certain racial/ethnic groups? What racial- and ethnic-specific protective factors and risk factors will promote the development of culturally appropriate interventions to prevent and control tobacco use? And to what extent are culturally specific tobacco control programs necessary to curb tobacco use among racial/ethnic populations? While research- ers are redirecting their focus, federal, state, and private tobacco control partners need to address program issues, such as how to develop and evaluate culturally appropriate prevention and cessation interventions. This report includes examples of numerous racial- and ethnic-specific tobacco control programs used in communities across the country. These and other racial/ethnic group-specific programs must be disseminated to all areas of the country, where program planners can develop their own strategies, taking into consideration the cultural attitudes, norms, expectations, and values of the targeted cultural groups. In each of these endealrors, we ivill succeed only if we are sensitive to our cultural differences and similarities. I challenge federal and state agencies as well as researchers and practitioners in the social, behavioral, public health, clinical, and biomedical sciences to join me in the pursuit of effective strategies to prevent and control tobacco use among racial/ethnic groups. By meeting this challenge, we will progress totvard achieving the nation's year 2000 tobacco-related health objectives and will help to prevent the unnecessary disability, disease, and deaths that result from tobacco use. David Satcher, M.D., Ph.D. Surgeon General and Assistant Secretary for Health Tobacco Use Amoq U.S. RaciallEtkic Mirlority Groups Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the general direc- tion of the Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Claire V. Broome, M.D., Acting Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. James S. Marks, M.D., M.P.H., Director, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Pro- motion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Virginia `3. Bales, M.P.H., Deputy Director, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Pro- motion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Michael I? Eriksen, Sc.D., Director, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Pre- vention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The editors of the report were Gerard0 Marin, Ph.D., Senior Scientific Editor, Profes- sor, Department of Psychology, University of San Fran- cisco, San Francisco, California. Gayle Lloyd, M.A., Managing Editor, Office on Smok- ing and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Valerie R. Johnson, Senior Editor, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Anne M. Pritchett, Technical Editor, Cygnus Corpora- tion, Rockville, Maryland. Contributing authors were Neal L. Benowitz, M.D., Professor and Chief, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Departments of Medicine, Pharmacy, and Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Uni- versity of California, San Francisco, California. Alan Blum, M.D., Associate Professor, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. Ronald L. Braithwaite, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Di- vision of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Emory University School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia. Felipe G. Castro, M.S.W., Ph.D., Director, Hispanic Research Center, and Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Moon S. Chen, Jr., Ph.D., M.P.H., Professor, Depart- ment of Preventive Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. David B. Coultas, M.D., Associate Professor of Medi- cine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Luis G. Escobedo, M.D., M.P.H., Medical Epidemiolo- gist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dorothy L. Faulkner, Ph.D., M.P.H., Epidemiologist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Larri L. Fredericks, Ph.D., M.P.H., Associate Scientist, American Indian Cancer Control Project, Medical Re- search Institute, Berkeley, California. Gary A. Giovino, Ph.D., Chief, Epidemiology Branch, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Sandra W. Headen, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Depart- ment of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Felicia Schanche Hodge, Dr.I?H., Principal Investiga- tor and Director, Center for American Indian Research and Education, Berkeley, California. Nancy J. Kaufman, R.N., M.S., Vice President, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey. Juliette S. Kendrick, M.D., Medical Epidemiologist, Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Gary King, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Coordina- tor, Urban Health Research Program, School of Medi- cine, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut. Beverly S. Kingsley, Ph.D., M.P.H., Epidemiologist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Rod Lew, M.P.H., Health Education Director, Asian Health Services, Oakland, California. Ann M. Malarcher, Ph.D., Epidemiologist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Dis- ease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Robert K. Merritt, M.A., Health Scientist, Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Michael D. Newcomb, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, California. John I? Peddicord, M.S., Computer Scientist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Dis- ease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Richard Pollay, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing, and Curator, History of Advertising Archives, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Amelie G. Ramirez, Dr.P.H., Associate Professor, De- partment of Family Practice, University of Texas, and Director, South Texas Health Research Center, San Antonio, Texas. Patricia A. Richter, Ph.D., M.P.H., Toxicologist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Robert C. Robinson, Dr.P.H., Associate Director for Program Development, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Richard B. Rothenberg, M.D., M.P.H., Professor, De- partment of Family and Preventive Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Jonathan M. Samet, M.D., Chairman, Department of Epidemiology, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Michael W. Schooley, M.P.H., Epidemiologist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Dana Shelton, M.P.H., Epidemiologist, Office on Smok- ing and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Michael B. Siegel, M.D., M.P.H., Assistant Professor, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. Charyn D. Sutton, President, The Onyx Group, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. Scott L. Tomar, D.M.D., Dr.P.H., Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Public Health and Hygiene, School of Dentistry, University of California, San Fran- cisco, California. Bao-Ping Zhu, M.S., M.B.B.S., Ph.D., Visiting Scientist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Reviewers were Jasjit S. Ahluwalia, M.D., M.P.H., MS., Assistant Pro- fessor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medi- cine, Atlanta, Georgia. David G. Altman, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Depart- ment of Public Health Sciences, Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Tobnccn Use Amon~q U.S. Racirzl/Ethic Minority Groups Glen Bennett, M.P.H., Coordinator, Office of Preven- tion, Education, and Control, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Gilbert J. Botvin, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Preven- tion Research, Department of Public Health, Cornell University Medical College, New York, New York. L. Jackson Brown, Director, Epidemiology and Oral Disease Prevention Program, National Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Linda Burhansstipanov, Dr.P.H., Director, Native American Cancer Research Program, American Medi- cal Center Cancer Research Center, Denver, Colorado. David Burns, M.D., Professor of Medicine, University of California at San Diego Medical Center, San Diego, California. W. Michael Byrd, M.D., M.P.H., Visiting Research Fel- low, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. Portia S. Choi, M.D., M.P.H., District Health Officer, Dr. Ruth Temple Health Center, Los Angeles, California. Nathaniel Cobb, M.D., Director, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Indian Health Service Headquarters West, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Janet L. Collins, Ph.D., Director, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Robert J. Collins, D.M.D., Chief Dental Officer, U.S. Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland. Linda S. Crossett, R.D.H., Research Scientist, Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. K. Michael Cummings, Ph.D., Director, Smoking Con- trol Program, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, New York State Department of Health, Buffalo, New York. Dorynne J. Czechowicz, M.D., Associate Director for Medical and Professional Affairs, Division of Clinical Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Maryland. Ronald M. Davis, M.D., Director, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan. Richard A. Daynard, Ph.D., J.D., Chairman, Tobacco Products Liability Project, Northeastern University School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts. Jane L. Delgado, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, National Coalition of Hispanic Health and Human Services Organization, Washington, D.C. John Elder, Ph.D., M.P.H., Professor, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Di- ego, California. Harmon Eyre, M.D., Deputy Executive Vice President for Medical Affairs and Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. Michael C. Fiore, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention, University of Wis- consin Medical School, Madison, Wisconsin. Adele M. Franks, M.D., Assistant Director for Science, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Harold P. Freeman, M.D., Director of Surgery, Harlem Hospital Center, New York, New York. Thomas J. Glynn, Ph.D., Chief, Prevention Control Extramural Research Branch, National Cancer Insti- tute, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, Mary- land. Michael G. Goldstein, M.D., Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island. Robert A. Hahn, Ph.D., M.P.H., Epidemiologist, Epi- demiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Betty Lee Hawks, M.A., Special Assistant to the Direc- tor, Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland. Clark W. Heath, Jr., M.D., Vice President for Epidemi- ology and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. Jack E. Henningfield, Ph.D., Vice President, Pinney Associates, Bethesda, Maryland. John H. Holbrook, M.D., Director of Internal Medicine, University of Utah Hospital, Salt Lake City, Utah. Thomas Houston, M.D., Director, Department of Pre- ventive Medicine and Public Health, American Medi- cal Association, Chicago, Illinois. Rudolph S. Jackson, Dr.P.H., Professor, Department of Health Education, North Carolina Central University, Durham, North Carolina. Elaine M. Johnson, Ph.D., Director, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, Maryland. Nora L. Keenan, Ph.D., Epidemiologist, Office of Sur- veillance and Analysis, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Monina Klevens, D.D.S., M.P.H., Medical Officer, Di- vision of HIV/AIDS, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Norman A. Krasnegor, Ph.D., Chief, Human Learning and Behavior Branch, Center for Research for Moth- ers and Children, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Leonard E. Lawrence, M.D., President, National Medi- cal Association, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. Edward Lichtenstein, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, Oregon. Douglas S. Lloyd, M.D., M.P.H., Associate Adminis- trator for Public Health Practice, Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland. Judith Mackay, M.B.E., J.P., F.R.C.P., Director, Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Audrey F. Manley, M.D., M.P.H., President, Spelman College, Atlanta, Georgia. Alfred McAlister, Ph.D., Associate Professor and As- sociate Director, Center for Health Promotion Research and Development, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. J. Michael McGinnis, M.D., Scholar-in-Residence, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Bertha MO, Ph.D., M.P.H., Senior Program Officer, In- ternational Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. C. Tracy Orleans, Ph.D., Senior Program Officer, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, New Jersey. Terry F. Pechacek, Ph.D., Visiting Scientist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Dis- ease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Cheryl L. Perry, Ph.D., Professor, Division of Epi- demiology, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. John P. Pierce, Ph.D., Sam M. Walton Professor for Cancer Research, Department of Family and Preven- tive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, California. Donald H. Reece, Tobacco Control Coordinator, Indian Health Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Patrick Remington, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Medical Officer, Wisconsin Division of Health, Madison, Wisconsin. Irene Reveles-Chase, M.P.H., Health Education Con- sultant, Tobacco Control Section, California Depart- ment of Public Health, Sacramento, California. Nancy A. Rigotti, M.D., Director, Quit Smoking Ser- vice, General Internal Medicine Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. Donald J. Sharp, M.D., Medical Epidemiologist, Of- fice on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Donald R. Shopland, Coordinator, Smoking and To- bacco Control Program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Beverly R. Singer, M.A., Research Staff Associate, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, New York. Jesse L. Steinfeld, M.D., Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, 1969-1973, San Diego, California. Jonathan R. Sugarman, M.D., M.P.H., Medical Epide- miologist, Portland Area Indian Health Service, Seattle, Washington. Michael J. Thun, M.D., Director, Analytic Epidemiol- ogy, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia. Michael H. Trujillo, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Indian Health Service, Rockville, Maryland. Kenneth E. Warner, Ph.D., Richard D. Remington Col- legiate Professor of Public Health, Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Raymond Weston, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Fellolz; Memo- rial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Division of I'sychia- try, New York, New York. Judith Wilkenfeld, J.D., Assistant Director, Division of Advertising Practices, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C. Jerome Williams, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing, Penn- sylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Ernst L. Wynder, M.D., President, American Health Foundation, New York, New York. Other contributors were Marco Andujar, Telecommunications Specialist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Ruth Atchison, Proofreader, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Cheryl Baldwin, Graphic Artist/Desktop Publishing Specialist, High 5 Design, Gaithersburg, Maryland. Mary Bedford, Proofreader, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Christine V. Bellantoni, Graduate Student, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut. Maureen Berg, Desktop Publishing Specialist, Market Experts, Silver Spring, Maryland. Mar&a Bernstein, Indexer, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Nolvell D. Berreth, Writer-Editor, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Pre- vention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Joyce Buchanan, Administrative Assistant, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Janine E. Bullard, Proofreader, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Ralph S. Carabello, Ph.D., Epidemiologist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Dis- ease Pre\yention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Jeffrey H. Chrismon, Systems Analyst, TRW Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Paulette Clark McGee, Proofreader, Cygnus Corpora- tion, Rockville, Maryland. Coreen A. Colovos, Copy Editor, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. DarTid E Coole, M.S., Statistical Programmer, TRW Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. Karen M. Deasy, Associate Director, Office on Smok- ing and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Washington, D.C. Susan R. Derrick, Program Analyst, Office on Smok- ing and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Ellen C. Dreyer, R.N., M.S., Project Director, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Rita Elliott, M.A., Editorial Consultant, University of New Mexico, School of Medicine, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Raymond J. Gamba, M.S., Graduate Student, The Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California. Maritta Perry Grau, M.A., Copy Editor, The Write Touch: Editorial Services, Frederick, Maryland. is Sarah Gregory, Acting Managing Editor, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Dis- ease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Lillian E. Hatch, M.S.L.S., Information Specialist, Cyg- nus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Elizabeth L. Hess, Copy Editor, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Thomya Hogan, Proofreader, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Reta N. Horton, M.A., Secretary, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Pre- vention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Frederick L. Hull, Ph.D., Writer-Editor, Technical In- formation and Editorial Services Branch, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Pro- motion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Mescal J. Knighton, Writer-Editor, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Anh Le, Project Coordinator, Vietnamese Community Health Promotion Project, University of California, San Francisco, California. Yun Chen W. Lin, M.P.H., Technical Information Spe- cialist, TRW Inc., Atlanta, Georgia. William T. Marx, M.L.I.S., Technical Information Spe- cialist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Cen- ter for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promo- tion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, At- lanta, Georgia. Maribet McCarty, R.N., M.P.H., Technical Information Specialist, The Orkand Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia. Margie McDonald, Word Processing Specialist, Cyg- nus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Linda A. McLaughlin, Word Processing Specialist, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Jennifer A. Michaels, M.L.S., Technical Information Specialist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Pro- motion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Barbara A. Mills, Secretary, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Preven- tion and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Con- trol and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Paul D. Mowery, M.S., Senior Research Scientist, Battelle Memorial Institute, Atlanta, Georgia. Leslie A. Norman, Public Affairs Specialist, Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Dis- ease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Ward C. Nyholm, Desktop Publishing Specialist, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Patrick O'Malley, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center, Univer- sity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Anniette Ponce de Leon, Student, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Felicia A. Powell, M.S., Statistical Programmer, TRW Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, Christopher Rigaux, Project Director, Cygnus Corpo- ration, Rockville, Maryland. Patricia L. Schwartz, Graphic Artist/Desktop Publish- ing Specialist, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Matthew B. Spangler, Proofreader, Cygnus Corpora- tion, Rockville, Maryland. Catherine T. Timmerman, Chief Operating Officer, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Peggy E. Williams, MS., Proofreader, Marietta, Georgia. Eve J. Wilson, Ph.D., Project Manager, Cygnus Corpo- ration, Rockville, Maryland. Beatrice K. Wolman, M.S., Project Manager, Cygnus Corporation, Rockville, Maryland. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Chapter 1. Introduction and Summary of Conclusions 3 Chapter 2. Patterns of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 29 Introduction 21 Long-Term Tobacco-Use Trends and Behavior Among Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 22 Retrospective Analyses of Smoking Prevalence Among African Americans and Hispanics 74 Effects of Education and Race/Ethnicit; on Cigarette-Smoking Behavior 83 Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke 86 Comparisons Between Racial,/Ethnic Minority Groups in Current Tobacco Use 87 Chapter 3. Health Consequences of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 135 Introduction 137 Lung Cancer 137 Other Cancers 149 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 7 55 Coronary Heart Disease 160 Cerebrovascular Disease 164 Smoking and Pregnancy 7 66 Summary of Health Consequences from Active Cigarette Smoking 172 Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke 2 72 Effects of Smokeless Tobacco Use 174 Nicotine Addiction and Racial/Ethnic Differences 175 Chapter 4. Factors That Influence Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 205 Introduction 207 Historical Context of Tobacco 208 Economic Influences 223 Advertising and Promotion 220 Psychosocial Determinants 225 Chapter 5. Tobacco Control and Education Efforts Among Members of Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 257 Introduction 259 Primary Prevention Efforts 266 Smoking Cessation Programs 274 Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Clean Indoor Air Policies 287 Economic Efforts to Reduce Tobacco Use 292 Efforts to Control Tobacco Advertising and Promotion 293 Tobacco Product Regulations 298 List of Tables and Figures 311 Glossary 319 Index 321 Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary of Conclusions Introduction 5 Major Conclusions 6 Preparation of This Report 7 Terms Related to Race and Ethnicity 7 Terms Related to Tobacco Use 8 Demographic Characteristics of the Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 8 Effects of Racial/Ethnic Background on Health 22 Chapter Conclusions 12 Chapter 2. Patterns of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Chapter 3. Health Consequences of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 12 Chapter 4. Factors That Influence Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 13 Chapter 5. Tobacco Control and Education Efforts Among Members of Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Z-1 12 References 15 Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Introduction This Surgeon General's report on tobacco use summarizes current information on risk factors and patterns related to tobacco use among members of four major racial and ethnic minority groups in the United States: African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Island- ers, and Hispanics. In addition, this report presents information on national and regional efforts to curtail consumption of tobacco products among members of these four groups. Previous Surgeon General's reports on smoking and health have briefly summarized find- ings related to one or more of the racial/ethnic groups covered in this report, but this is the first Surgeon General's report to concentrate specifically on the four major racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Several factors prompted the development of this report. First, the information in this report has never before been compiled in one source. Consequently, policymakers, community leaders, researchers, and public health workers have had difficulty determin- ing the extent of the problem, identifying gaps in in- formation regarding tobacco use among members of the four groups, or being aware of existing tobacco con- trol programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. Thus, incorporating such information into the design and implementation of culturally appropriate services has been difficult. Second, the four racial/ethnic groups currently constitute about one-fourth of the population of this country, and the Bureau of the Census projects that by 2050 the non-Hispanic white population in the United States will total only 53 percent (Day 1996). Prevent- ing health problems related to tobacco use among the individuals in racial and ethnic groups will be inte- gral to achieving U.S. public health objectives, such as those proposed in Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives (U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services [USDHHS] 1991, 1995; National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS] 1994). This report contributes essential knowledge that must be incorporated into efforts to accomplish the Healthy People 2000 objectives, particularly these six goals: o Objective 3.1. Reduce coronary heart disease deaths to no more than 100 per 100,000 people. (Age- adjusted baseline: 135 deaths per 100,000 people in 1987.) Among African Americans, reduce the number from 168 to 115 deaths per 100,000 people between 1987 and the year 2000 (Objective 3.la). o Objective 3.2. Slow the rise in lung cancer deaths to achieve a rate of no more than 42 per 100,000 people. (Age-adjusted baseline: 38.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 1987.) Among African Ameri- can males, slow the rise from 86.1 to 91 deaths per 100,000 people between 1990 and the year 2000 (Objective 3.2b). o Objective 3.4. Reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking to no more than 15 percent among people aged 18 years and older. (Baseline: 29 percent in 1987 [31 percent for men and 27 percent for women].) Particular year 2000 objectives include lowering the prevalence of smoking to 18 percent among African Americans (Objective 3.4d), 15 per- cent among Hispanics (Objective 3.4e), and 20 per- cent among American Indians and Alaska Natives (Objective 3.4f) and Southeast Asian men (Objec- tive 3.4g). o Objective 3.5. Reduce the initiation of cigarette smoking by children and youths so that no more than 15 percent have become regular cigarette smokers by the age of 20 years. (Baseline: 30 per- cent of youths had become regular cigarette smok- ers by the ages of 20-24 years in 1987.) . Objecfive 3.9. Reduce the prevalence of smokeless tobacco use among males aged 12-24 years to no more than 4 percent. (Baseline: 6.6 percent among males aged 12-17 years in 1988; 8.9 percent among males aged 18-24 years in 1987.) A specific objec- tive is to lower the prevalence of smokeless tobacco use among American Indian and Alaska Native young adults to 10 percent by the year 2000 (Ob- jective 3.9a). o Objective 3.18. Reduce stroke deaths to no more than 20 per 100,000 people. (Age-adjusted baseline: 30.4 deaths per 100,000 people in 1987.) Among African Americans, reduce the number from 52.5 to 27.0 deaths per 100,000 people between 1987 and the year 2000 (Objective 3.18a). Introduction and Summary 5 This report of the Surgeon General also responds to the need to thoroughly analyze the smoking-related health status of racial/ethnic groups and to determine if there is a differential risk for tobacco addiction (Chen 1993). High risk might derive from personal charac- teristics but also from social factors, such as migratory patterns, acculturation, and the tobacco industry's his- torical involvement in the racial/ethnic communities and targeted advertising and promotion of tobacco products (see Chapter 4). In addition, this report is needed to document how patterns of health, disease, and illness among people in the various racial/ethnic minority groups differ from patterns in the rest of the U.S. population. These differences reflect the groups' exposure to to- bacco products, as well as the heterogeneity of the groups' lifestyles, cultural beliefs and practices, genetic backgrounds, and environmental exposures. This re- port illustrates how patterns of tobacco use differ among and within the four racial/ethnic groups (Chapter 2). It compares the groups in terms of the incidence and the prevalence of death rates for diseases commonly associated with tobacco use and presents data from case-control and cohort studies whenever possible (Chapter 3). The health status of members of racial and eth- nic groups in this country has also been the focus of previous federal reports, such as the Health Sfot~ of Minorities nrzd Lo7~~-Im~11zc Grou~75 (Health Resources and Services Administration [HRSAI 19851, the Report of the Secretnry's Task Force OH BInck mzd Minority Henlth (USDHHS 19851, and CIrroizic Disense in Mifforify Pop~l- lations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 1994). This Surgeon General's report supports initiatives such as the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the early 1980s; the Surgeon General's National Hispanic/Latin0 Health Initiative (Novello and Soto-Torres 1993); special funding ini- tiatives from federal agencies such as the CDC, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1994), and the National Institute of Mental Health (National Institutes of Health 1993); the Department of Health and Human Services's 1996 Hispanic Agendn for Action: lmprouiug Stwiccs to Hispanic Americans, and the 1998 President's Race Ini- tiative, which includes special funding initiatives for the CDC, the Indian Health Service, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. Major Conclusions 1. Cigarette smoking is a major cause of disease and death in each of the four population groups stud- ied in this report. African Americans currently bear the greatest health burden. Differences in the magnitude of disease risk are directly related to differences in patterns of smoking. 2. Tobacco use varies within and among racial/ ethnic minority groups; among adults, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest prevalence of tobacco use, and African American and Southeast Asian men also have a high preva- lence of smoking. Asian American and Hispanic women have the lowest prevalence. 3. Among adolescents, cigarette smoking prevalence increased in the 1990s among African Americans and Hispanics after several years of substantial de- cline among adolescents of all four racial/ethnic minority groups. This increase is particularly strik- ing among African American youths, who had the greatest decline of the four groups during the 1970s and 1980s. 4. No single factor determines patterns of tobacco use among racial/ethnic minority groups; these pat- terns are the result of complex interactions of mul- tiple factors, such as socioeconomic status, cultural characteristics, acculturation, stress, biological el- ements, targeted advertising, price of tobacco products, and varying capacities of communities to mount effective tobacco control initiatives. 5. Rigorous surveillance and prevention research are needed on the changing cultural, psychosocial, and environmental factors that influence tobacco use to improve our understanding of racial/ethnic smoking patterns and identify strategic tobacco control opportunities. The capacity of tobacco control efforts to keep pace with patterns of to- bacco use and cessation depends on timely recog- nition of emerging prevalence and cessation patterns and the resulting development of appro- priate community-based programs to address the factors involved. Preparation of This Report This report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Cen- ter for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promo- tion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, as part of the Department's mandate, under Public Laws 91-222 and 99-252, to report to the U.S. Congress current in- formation about the health effects of tobacco use. The report was produced with the assistance of experts in the behavioral, epidemiological, medical, and public health fields. Initial background papers were produced by more than 25 scientists w~ho \vere selected because of their expertise and familiaritv M'ith the topics covered in this report. Their various contri- butions were summarized into five major chapters that were reviewed by 28 peer revie\vers. The entire manu- script was then sent to 13 scientists and experts, wrllo reviewed it for its scientific integritv. Subsequently, the report was reviewed by various institutes and agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services. Terms Related to Race and Ethnicity Race and ethnicity are classifications currently used for various purposes, such as tracking morbidity and mortality statistics, defining group characteristics (as is done in many studies and by most federal and state agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of the Cen- sus), and exploring the health characteristics of indi- viduals and groups. Most extant data consider four rack! groups in the United States (African American or black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and white) as well as two etlr,ric categories (Hispanic and non-Hispanic). Specific choices have been made in selecting the labels used to identify individuals who share a given race, tradition, culture, or ethnicity. These labels dif- fer somewhat from those published in the Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal Statistics and Adminis- trative Reporting, more commonly known as Direc- tive 15 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1978). This di- rective presents rules for classifying persons into four racial groups (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, black, and white) and two ethnic categories (Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin). The labels in this report were chosen to reflect current preferred use by many members of each group and researchers as well as to more clearly identify Tobacco Use Amo~lg U.S. Ra&l/Ethic Minority Groups members of a given group. Nevertheless, because of differences in the way in which ethnicity has been as- certained in the various studies, some overlap and misclassification may exist, particularly with regard to Hispanic origin (for example, Hispanics of African background may be classified as African Americans, or Hispanics may be classified as non-Hispanic whites). In addition, the terms used in this report do not always precisely depict the racial/ethnic group studied (for instance, this report consistently uses the term American I,diall and Alaska Ndiue, even when de- scribing studies of Nofive Americnm-a category that in some cases excludes Alaska Natives). Moreover, the terms used here do not reflect the fact that some studies were conducted in the 48 contiguous states and may exclude a substantial number of Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians. Throughout this report, the following labels and definitions are used, with the ref- erents basically agreeing with those of Directive 15: Afrimll Americau. Individuals who trace their an- cestry of origin to Sub-Saharan Africa. Aliwricnn Idinn ~nrl AInska Nntiue. Persons who have origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintain that cultural identifi- cation through self-identification, tribal affiliation, or community recognition. Asin~ American amI Pacific lslnnder. Individuals who trace their background to the Far East, South- east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. His[JaJ7iC. Persons who trace their background to one of the Spanish-speaking countries in the Americas or to other Spanish cultures or origins. Wlzite. Persons who have origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East. Throughout most of this report, white refers to non-Hispanic whites. Finally, this report avoids using such labels as /""FJk of color, spa%/ p0p741nti017s, Jntdticdtural pOp7dLP from, or diverse popzrlntinm because some people con- sider them inaccurate, improper, or pejorative. With- out question, not everyone will agree with the terms used in this report because no universally accepted labels exist. These terms will continue to evolve with time. Terms Related to Tobacco Use Throughout this report, F?rezlnle?zce of smking ces- sation is used to describe the proportion of persons who had ever smoked and who were former smokers at the time of survey (this term is used instead of quit ratio or quit rate). Definitions related to smoking status-ever smokers, never smokers, current smok- ers, and former smokers-are presented later in this report (see Chapter 2). Demographic Characteristics of the Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups In the 1990 U.S. Census, the four racial and eth- nic groups that are the focus of this report accounted for 24 percent of the population, or more than 60 mil- lion people (Table 1). African Americans were the larg- est group, followed by Hispanics, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives. Although these groups constitute a minority of the total population, their overall growth of 32 percent between 1980 and 1990 far exceeds the 4- percent increase among whites (Table 1). Asian Ameri- cans and Pacific Islanders had the largest growth during that period, followed by Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and African Americans. Because of this rapid growth, racial and ethnic popu- lations tend to be younger than the white majority. Demographic characteristics vary significantly when the four racial and ethnic groups are compared with whites, according to 1990 census data (Table 2; within-group variability is masked because all sub- groups th.at make up a given racial or ethnic group are considered together) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993~). The median ages of Hispanics (25.6 years), as well as American Indians and Alaska Natives (26.9 years), are lower than those of the other racial/ethnic group mem- bers. Hispanics have the lowest proportion of high school graduates (49.8 percent) of all groups and the highest proportion of people who speak a language other than English (77.8 percent). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (38.4 percent) as well as Hispan- ics (39.4 percent) have the largest proportions of indi- viduals who feel they do not speak English "very well." They also have the highest proportions of foreign-born persons. American Indians and Alaska Natives, Afri- can Americans, and Hispanics have significantly higher levels of unemployment and poverty as well as substantially lower household incomes than Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, or whites. In all four groups, a majority of members live in urban environ- ments; however, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the lowest proportion of urban residents. Differences in the demographic characteristics of each of the various racial and ethnic groups are related to variations in national background and immigration history. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, for example, include approximately 32 different ethnic and Table 1. U.S. population distribution, by racelethnicity and Hispanic origin and percentage change, 1980-1990 1980 1990 (in millions) (in millions) 70 Change White* 180.26 188.42 4 African American* 26.10 29.28 12 Hispanic Asian American and Pacific Islander 3.50 7.23 107 American Indian and Alaska Native% 1.42 2.02 42 *Excludes persons of Hispanic origin. *Excludes 3.5 million Hispanics in Puerto Rico. $Includes Eskimos and Aleuts. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983,1993c. 8 Clzaytrr 1 Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minnrity Groups Table 2. Selected demographic characteristics for the U.S. population, by racelethnicity, 1990 African American Indians/ Asian Americans/ Characteristic Americans Alaska Natives Pacific Islanders Hispanics Whites* Population 29,930,524 2,015,143 7,226,986 21,900,089 188,424,773 Women (percentage) Median age (years) Foreign born (percentage) 52.8 50.4 51.2 49.2 51.3 28.2 26.9 30.1 25.6 34.9 4.9 2.3 63.1 35.8 3.3 Education (percentage of persons aged 225 years) High school education Bachelor's degree or higher English-language ability (percentage of persons aged 25 years) Speak a language other than English Do not speak English "very well" Number of persons per family Percentage of families with own children aged ~18 years Employment statust (percentage of persons aged 216 years) Employed Unemployed Percentage of employed persons aged 216 years in a managerial/professional occupation Household income in 1989 ($) Median Mean Per capita income in 1989 ($) Poverty rate (percentage) Families Persons Urban residents (percentage) 63.1 65.5 77.5 49.8 79.1 11.4 9.3 36.6 9.2 22.1 6.3 2.4 3.5 56.5 62.7 62.1 67.5 67.5 65.3 12.9 14.4 5.3 10.4 5.0 23.8 73.3 77.8 5.7 9.2 38.4 39.4 1.8 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.0 60.7 59.5 64.5 45.2 18.1 18.3 30.6 14.1 28.5 19,758 20,025 36,784 24,156 31,672 25,872 26,602 46,695 30,301 40,646 8,859 8,328 13,638 8,400 16,074 26.3 27.0 11.6 22.3 7.0 29.5 30.9 14.1 25.3 9.2 87.2 56.0 95.4 91.4 70.9 *Excludes persons of Hispanic origin. The population figures for African Americans in Tables 1 and 2 are different because the population cited in Table 2 includes African Americans of Hispanic origin, while the African American population cited in Table 1 excludes persons of Hispanic origin. tThese figures do not include several categories of people who were not in the civilian labor force for various reasons, such as students, housewives, retired workers, seasonal workers in an off season who were not looking for work, institutionalized persons, during the reference week). and persons doing only incidental unpaid family work (less than 15 hours Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993a,c. national groups and speak nearly 500 languages and dialects (Chen 1993). They trace their background to areas as diverse as Mongolia to the north, Indonesia and the South Pacific Islands to the south, India to the west, and Japan to the east. Hispanics include indi- viduals who trace their background to the original set- tlers of large areas in what is now the Southwest United States as well as recent immigrants from any of the 18 Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America. The American Indian and Alaska Native population in the United States is likewise composed of a richly diverse group of indigenous cultures of indigenous cultures, over half of whom do not live on a reservation (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993~). More than 500 federally recognized tribes and an additional 100 nonfederally recognized tribes are concentrated primarily in 25 res- ervation states (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992a). American Indians and Alaska Natives continue to speak more than 150 languages. (For additional infor- mation, see U.S. Bureau of the Census reports on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders [1993a], Hispanics [1993b], and American Indians and Alaska Natives [ 1993~1.) Most African Americans in the United States can trace their ancestry to territories that include the modern states of Benin, Burkina Faso (formerly Upper Volta), Cameroon, the Congo Republic, Cote d'lvoire (Ivory Coast), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire), Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo (Ploski and Williams 1989). The mode of entry for practically all Africans who entered the United States in the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries (until 1865) was as slaves (see Chapter 4 for further historical discussion). Many recent immigrants came from the Caribbean islands and Sub-Saharan Africa. This report excludes data on the 3.5 million residents of Puerto Rico as well as data on residents of other territories and associated states of the United States; however, many of the issues discussed in this report are relevant to these individuals because they have been influenced by the events taking place in the 50 states. Over the next 50 years, the population of the four groups is expected to increase dramatically, reaching close to one-half of the country's population by the year 2050 (Table 3), according to estimates from the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1992b). These estimates underscore the need to develop appropriate interven- tions to avert disturbing tobacco addiction patterns in this large segment of the population. Table 3. Estimated percentage distribution of the U.S. population, by race/ethnicity and Hispanic origin, 1990-2050 Year African American Non-Hispanic Asian American/ American Pacific Islander Indian* White Hispanic 1990 11.8 2.8 0.7 75.7 9.0 1995 12.1 3.5 0.7 73.6 10.1 2000 12.3 4.2 0.8 71.6 11.1 2005 12.6 `I.9 0.8 69.6 12.2 2010 12.8 5.5 0.8 67.6 13.2 2020 13.3 6.8 0.9 63.9 15.2 2050 15.0 10.1 1.1 52.7 21.1 *Includes Eskimos and Aleuts. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census 1992b. 10 Chapter 2 Tblmco Uw Amorzg U.S. Rncid/Ethnic Minority Groups Effects of Racial/Ethnic Background on Health Extensive research has been conducted on the relationship between health and race/ethnicity (see, for example, Harwood 1981; Polednak 1989; Braithwaite and Taylor 1992; Young 1994). Published reports of these studies tend to show different rates of illness across racial/ethnic groups. Some of these dif- ferences may be explained by variations in each group's beliefs and attitudes, traditional health-related practices, normative behaviors, social conditions, lev- els of access to high-quality health care, experiences with discrimination and racism, living env,ironments, competing causes of death, and genetic backgrounds. Genetic factors may contribute to certain differences among groups of people; however, culture, degree of acculturation, and socioeconomic factors are probably far more significant determinants of health status in the United States (Freeman 1993; Adler et al. 1994). Culture is a broad concept (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1963)-its influence encompasses all as- pects of daily life, including beliefs and practices about health and illness as well as norms that dictate behav- iors. Most contemporary societies include many dif- ferent cultures, which may be defined by historical, geographic, economic, social, and political elements (Helman 1985). The United States has always been a nation of immigrants and coexisting cultures. Acculturation-the process of learning the val- ues, beliefs, norms, and traditions of a new culture (Marin 1992)-allows individuals to make choices and to learn of new worldviews, while keeping their origi- nal views (biculturalism) or modifying their initial perspectives to be more consonant with those of the new culture (assimilation). In multicultural societies such as the United States, acculturation occurs among immigrants (as they learn the host culture) as well as among individuals born in the United States (as they learn the culture of immigrants). Despite the signifi- cance of acculturation's link with human behavior, few studies have focused on how acculturation might affect the health status and behavior of ethnic groups in the United States. Part of the problem has been the difficulty in designing appropriate measuring instru- ments (Marin 19921, although recent research has begun to assess the role that acculturation plays in determining the health status of members of U.S. racial/ethnic groups (Perez-Stable 1994; Vega and Amaro 1994; Williams and Collins 1995). Socioeconomic characteristics, which are power- ful determinants of health and disease (USDHHS 1985, 1991; Liberatos et al. 1988; HRSA 1991; Williams and Collins 1995), differ markedly among the racial and ethnic groups of the United States (Table 2). Levels of income and education may directly and indirectly af- fect the health status of individuals (Council on Ethi- cal and Judicial Affairs 1990; Weissman et al. 1991). Jncome, for example, often is a determinant of access to health care as well as of the quantity and quality of health care available. Persons with low incomes, re- gardless of race or ethnicity, are more likely to be uninsured (American College of Physicians 19901, to encounter delays in seeking or receiving care or to be denied care (Tallon 1989), to rely on hospital clinics and emergency rooms for health services (NCHS 19851, and to receive substandard care (Burstin et al. 1992). Level of education may influence health beliefs and behaviors, which determine whether and how indi- viduals seek health care, make treatment choices, and comply with treatment suggestions. Because the lit- erature reviewed in this report has often failed to con- sider the role of socioeconomic factors in the health status of members of racial/ethnic groups, under- standing the significance of the results is difficult. Nevertheless, these published reports indicate that access to health care and the type of care received are partly determined by the race and ethnicity of the pa- tient and that members of minority groups are less likely than whites to receive adequate care (e.g., Blendon et al. 1989; CDC 1989; Todd et al. 1993; Wil- liams and Collins 1995). The information summarized in this report re- flects the role of race, ethnicity, and culture in shaping tobacco use among members of the four population groups. Unfortunately, currently available methods do not help delineate the role of acculturation, socio- economic conditions, and societal problems such as racism, prejudice, and discrimination (e.g., Osborne and Feit 1992; Freeman 1993; Pappas 1994). Never- theless, efforts were made here to discern the possible role of these variables in explaining tobacco use among racial/ethnic minority group members. Surgeon General's Report Chapter Conclusions Following are the specific conclusions for each chapter in this report. Chapter 2. Patterns of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. In 1978-1995, the prevalence of cigarette smoking declined among African American, Asian Ameri- can and Pacific Islander, and Hispanic adults. However, among American Indians and Alaska Natives, current smoking prevalence did not change for men from 1983 to 1995 or for women from 1978 to 1995. Tobacco use varies within and among racial/ ethnic groups; among adults, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest prevalence of tobacco use; African American and Southeast Asian men also have a high prevalence of smok- ing. Asian American and Hispanic women have the lowest prevalence. In all racial/ethnic groups discussed in this report except American Indians and Alaska Natives, men have a higher prevalence of cigarette smoking than women. In all racial/ethnic groups except African Ameri- cans, men are more likely than women to use smokeless tobacco. Cigarette smoking prevalence increased in the 1990s among African American and Hispanic ado- lescents after several years of substantial decline among adolescents of all four racial/ethnic minor- ity groups. This increase is particularly striking among African American youths, who had the greatest decline of the four groups during the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1978, the prevalence of cigarette smoking has remained strikingly high among American Indian and Alaska Native women of reproductive age and has not declined as it has among African Ameri- can, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and Hispanic women of reproductive age. Declines in smoking prevalence were greater among African American, Hispanic, and white men who were high school graduates than they 8. 9. 10. were among those with less formal education. Among women in these three groups, education- related declines in cigarette smoking were less pronounced. Educational attainment accounts for only some of the differences in smoking behaviors (current smoking, heavy smoking, ever smoking, and smoking cessation) between whites and the racial/ ethnic minority groups discussed in this report. Other biological, social, and cultural factors are likely to further account for these differences. Compared with whites who smoke, smokers in each of the four racial/ethnic minority groups smoke fewer cigarettes each day. Among smok- ers, African Americans, Asian Americans and Pa- cific Islanders, and Hispanics are more likely than whites to smoke occasionally (less than daily). The data in general suggest that acculturation in- fluences smoking patterns in that individuals tend to adopt the smoking behavior of the current broader community; however, the exact effects of acculturation on smoking behavior are difficult to quantify because of limitations on most available measures of this cultural learning process. Chapter 3. Health Consequences of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 1. Cigarette smoking is a major cause of disease and death in each of the four racial/ethnic groups stud- ied in this report. African Americans currently bear the greatest health burden. Differences in the magnitude of disease risk are directly related to differences in patterns of smoking. 2. Although lung cancer incidence and death rates vary widely among the nation's racial/ethnic groups, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for each of the racial/ethnic groups studied in this report. Before 1990, death rates from malig- nant neoplasms of the respiratory system increased among African American, Hispanic, and American Indian and Alaska Native men and women. From 12 Chapter 1 3. 4. 5 L 6. 7. 8. 1990 through 1995 death rates from respiratory can- cers decreased substantially among African Ameri- can men, leveled off among African American women, decreased slightly among Hispanic men and women, and increased among American Indian and Alaska Native men and women. Rates of tobacco-related cancers (other than lung cancer) vary widely among members of racial/ ethnic groups, and they are particularly high among African American men. The effect of cigarette smoking (as reflected by biomarkers of tobacco exposure) on infant birth weight appears to be the same in African American and white women. As reported in previous Sur- geon General's reports, cigarette smoking increases the risk of delivering a low-birth-weight infant. No significant racial/ethnic group differences have been consistently demonstrated in the relationship between smoking and infant mortality or sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS); cigarette smoking has been associated with increased risk of SIDS and remains a probable cause of infant mortality. Future research is needed and should focus on 110~ tobacco use affects coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other respiratory diseases among members of racial/ethnic groups. Studies also are needed to determine how the health effects of smokeless to- bacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke vary across racial/ethnic minority groups. Persons of all racial/ethnic backgrounds are vul- nerable to becoming addicted to nicotine, and no consistent differences exist in the overall severity of addiction or symptoms of addiction across racial/ethnic groups. Levels of serum cotinine (a biomarker of tobacco exposure) are higher in African American smok- ers than in white smokers for similar levels of daily cigarette consumption. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between smoking prac- tices and serum cotinine levels in U.S. racial/ ethnic groups. Variables such as group-specific patterns of smoking behavior (e.g., number of puffs per cigarette, retention time of tobacco smoke in the lungs), rates of nicotine metabolism, and brand mentholation could be explored. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racinl/Ethnic Minority Groups Chapter 4. Factors That Influence Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The close association of tobacco with significant events and rituals in the history of many racial/ ethnic communities and the tobacco industry's long history of providing economic support to some racial/ethnic groups-including employ- ment opportunities and contributions to commu- nity groups and leaders-may undermine prevention and control efforts. The tobacco industry's targeted advertising and promotion of tobacco products among members of these four U.S. racial/ethnic groups may un- dermine prevention and control efforts and thus lead to serious health consequences. The high level of tobacco product advertising in racial/ethnic publications is problematic be- cause the editors and publishers of these publica- tions may omit stories dealing with the damaging effects of tobacco or limit the level of tobacco-use prevention and health promotion information in- cluded in their publications. Although much of the original research on psy- chosocial factors that influence tobacco use reflects general processes that may apply to racial/ethnic populations, documenting such generalizability requires further research. The initiation of tobacco use and early tobacco use among members of the various racial/ethnic mi- nority groups seem to be related to numerous cat- egories of variables-such as sociodemographic, environmental, historical, behavioral, personal, and psychological-although the predictive power of these categories or of specific risk factors is not known with certainty because of the paucity of research. Cigarette smoking among members of the four racial/ethnic groups is associated with depression, psychological stress, and environmental factors such as advertising and promotion and peers who smoke, as is also the case in the general popula- tion. The role of these factors in tobacco use among members of these racial/ethnic groups deserves attention by researchers and persons who develop smoking prevention and cessation programs. Chapter 5. Tobacco Control and Education Efforts Among Members of Four Racial/ Ethnic Minority Groups 1. More research is needed on the effect of culturally appropriate programs to reduce tobacco use among racial/ethnic minority groups. Interven- tions should be language appropriate; addressing psychosocial characteristics such as depression, stress, and acculturation may increase the accep- tance of programs by members of racial/ethnic groups. 2. To be culturally appropriate, tobacco control pro- grams must reflect the targeted racial/ethnic group's cultural values, consider the group's psychosocial correlates of tobacco use, and use strategies that are acceptable and credible to mem- bers of the group. Culturally competent program staff must be aware and accepting of cultural dif- ferences, be able to assess their own cultural val- ues, be conscious of intercultural dynamics when persons of different cultures interact, be aware of a racial/ethnic group's relevant cultural charac- teristics, and have the skills to adapt to cultural diversity. 3. Numerous strategies are needed to control tobacco use among racial/ethnic youths: restricting mi- nors' access to tobacco products, establishing cul- turally appropriate school-based programs, and designing mass media efforts geared to young people's interests, attitudes, expectations, and norms. Recent provisions of the Synar Amend- ment, designed to prevent minors' access to to- bacco products, and the FDA regulations aimed at reducing the access to and appeal of tobacco products to young people are intended to reduce tobacco use among all youth, including members of racial/ethnic minority groups. 4. Members of racial/ethnic groups are less likely than the general population to participate in smok- ing cessation groups and to receive cessation ad- vice from health care providers. Barriers to ethnic group participation include limited cultural com- petence of health care providers and a lack of trans- portation, money, and access to health care. 5. Available data indicate that racial/ethnic groups support smoking restrictions, such as increasing cigarette excise taxes, banning cigarette advertise- ments, restricting access to cigarette vending ma- chines, raising the legal age of purchase, prohibiting sponsorship of events by tobacco com- panies, and establishing clean indoor air regula- tions. Additional research is needed to evaluate how best to build on this base of public opinion support to strengthen existing tobacco prevention and control programs within racial/ethnic communities. 6. Prevention and cessation efforts in racial/ethnic communities are limited by underdeveloped to- bacco control infrastructures and low levels of re- sources for research, program development, and program dissemination. Greater resources are needed in racial/ethnic minority communities to build tobacco control infrastructures and to develop initiatives. 14 Chapter 1 Tc7bacco USP Amoilg U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups References Adler NE, Boyce T, Chesney MA, Cohen S, Folkman S, Kahn RL, et al. Socioeconomic status and health: the challenge of the gradient. Anrericarl Psychologist 1994;49(1):15-24. American College of Physicians. Access to health care [position paper]. Allllals of lizferr~a[ Medicir~e 1990;112(9):641-61. Blendon RJ, Aiken LH, Freeman HE, Corey CR. Ac- cess to medical care for black and white Americans: a matter of continuing concern. ]olllrlfl/ of th Americans Medical Associatioll 1989;261(2):278-81. Braithwaite RL, Taylor SE, editors. Health Iss~~es ijz the Black Con?lnrlllif!/. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass I'ublish- ers, 1992. Burstin HR, Lipsitz SR, Brennan TA. Socioeconomic status and risk for substandard medical care. ]or~rml of the Amcricall Medical Associafioll 1992;268(17): 2383-7. Centers for Disease Control. Pap smear screening- Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1988. Morbidity afld Mortalify Weekly Rer'orf 1989;38(45): 777-9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Clrronic Disease itz Minority Populations. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1994. Chen VW. Smoking and the health gap in minorities. Annals of Epidemiology 1993;3(2):159-64. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Black-white disparities in health care. Journal of the American Mcdi- cal Associafioll 1990;263(17):2344-6. Day JC. Population Projections ofthe United States buy Age, Sex, Race, aud Hispanic Origin: 2995 to 2050. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office. P25-1130,1996. Freeman HP. Poverty, race, racism, and survival. An- nals of Epidemiology 1993;3(2):145-9. Harwood A, editor. Ethnicity and Medical Care. Cam- bridge (MA): Harvard University Press, 1981. Health Resources and Services Administration. Health Shfus of Minorifics alzll Lozo-Income Groups. Washing- ton (DC): US Department of Health and Human Ser- Lices, Public Health Service, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Disadvantaged Assistance. DHHS Publi- cation No. (HRSA) HRS-P-DV 85-1,1985. Health Resources and Services Administration. Health Staflrs of Minorities aild Lox,-Income Groups: Third Edi- tion. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Health Re- sources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Professions, Division of Disadvantaged Assistance. GPO Publication No. 507-J-1, 1991. Helman C. Cldfllre, Health and Illness: An Introduction for Health Proftssionals. Bristol (England): John Wright & Sons, 1985. Kroeber AL, Kluckhohn C. Culture: A Critical Review of Co~zcq~fs aizd Definitions. New York: Vintage Books, 1963. Liberatos I', Link BG, Kelsey JL. The measurement of social class in epidemiology. Epidemiologic Rez.iews 1988;10:87-121. Marin G. Issues in the measurement of acculturation among Hispanics. In: Geisinger KF, editor. Psychologz'- cal Testing of Hispanics. Washington (DC): American Psychological Association, 1992:235-51. National Center for Health Statistics. Persons With and Without a Regular Source of Medical Care: United States. Data from the National Health Survey. Vituland Health Statistics. Series 10, No. 151. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Pub- lic Health Service, National Center for Health Statis- tics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 85-1579,1985. National Center for Health Statistics. Healthy People 2000 Rez+w, 1993. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 94-l 232-1, 1994. Introduction and Swrmar~y 15 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Mi!lorif?/ Prqpm oft/w Nntioiznl Hcnrt, Lung, and Blood Zmfitllfe: Fiscal Ycnr 2993. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. NIH Publication No. 94-3037,1994. National Institutes of Health. Minorities in AJIH Exfm- rllllrnl Grmt Programs: Fiscal Xw 2982-1991. Bethesda (MD): National Institutes of Health, Division of Re- search Grants. GPO Publication No. 351-597, 1993. Novello AC, Soto-Torres LE. One voice, one vision- uniting to improve Hispanic-Latin0 health. Public Hmlfh Rcyorts 1993;108(5):529-33. Osborne NC, Feit MD. The use of race in medical re- search [commentary]. /ourml of the Awricm Mrdicnl Associnfio!l 1992;267(2):275-9. Pappas G. Elucidating the relationships between race, socioeconomic status, and health [editorial]. A~nrricm \ownnl of PnbIic Hen/Hz 1994;84(6):892-3. IVrez-Stable EJ. Cardiovascular disease. In: Molina CW, Aguirre-Molina M. Lntim Hmlth ifz thr US: A Grozll- it~g Challrngc. Washington (DC): American Public Health Association, 1994:247-78. Ploski HA, Williams J, editors. Tlw Nepv Alnznmc: A Rcfercmc Work on t/w AfricofI Awricnll. Detroit: Gale Research Inc, 1989. Polednak AI? Rncial md Ethnic Di,ffowws ifz Diwasc. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Tallon JR Jr. A health policy agenda proposal for in- cluding the poor. luurnnl (Tf the Americmr Mcdicnl Asso- ciation 1989;261(7):1044. Todd KH, Samaroo N, Hoffman JR. Ethnicity as a risk factor for inadequate emergency department analge- sia. lolcrlrrrl of fhe Americrzu Medico1 Associafiou 1993;269(12):1k37-9. US Bureau of the Census. Chapter C, General Social and Economic Characteristics. Part 1, United States Summary. 2980 Cfws~~s of Poylrlatiorl, Volume 1, C1umc- trristics of tlze Pnplnfion. Washington (DC): US Gov- ernment Printing Office. Publication No. PC80-I-Cl, 1983. US Bureau of the Census. 7990 Censlls CJ~ Popdnfion, Genernl Poplation Characteristics, United States. Wash- ington (DC): US Department of Commerce, Econom- ics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 1992a. US Bureau of the Census. Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1992 to 2050. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Cur- rent Pqdation Reports. Washington (DC): US Govern- ment Printing Office. P25-1092, 1992b. US Bureau of the Census. 2990 Census of Population: Asians md Pmific Islanders in the United States. Wash- ington (DC): US Department of Commerce, Econom- ics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Publication No. CP-3-5,1993a. US Bureau of the Census. 2990 Census of Population: Pcrsmzs of Hispanic Origirz in the United States. Wash- ington (DC): US Department of Commerce, Econom- ics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Publication No. CP-3-3,1993b. US Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Poplafion: Social nr~d Economic Charocferisfics, United States. Wash- ington (DC): US Department of Commerce, Econom- ics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Publication No. 0-2-1, 1993~. US Department of Commerce. Directive No. 15. Race and ethnic standards for federal statistics and admin- istrative reporting. In: Stnfisticnl Polic!/ Ha&book. Wash- ington (DC): US Department of Commerce, Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, 1978:37-g. US Department of Health and Human Services. Re- prf of fh Sccrcfary's Tnsk Force 011 Black & Minority H~wltlz. Vol~om~ 2: Esrcutiz~e Sumrmy. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services, 1985. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000: Nnfiorzrr/ Heaifh Promofion and Disease Pre- ZWI~~OJ~ Objecfiws. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 91-50212,199l. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2000: Midcourse Rez+w nnd 1995 Rezlisions. Wash- ington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1995. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Vega WA, Amaro H. Latin0 outlook: good health, Williams DR, Collins C. US socioeconomic and racial uncertain prognosis. Annual Reviezu of Public Health differences in health: patterns and explanations. An- 1994;15:39-67. nrlal Review of Sociology 1995;21:349-86. Weissman JS, Stern R, Fielding SL, Epstein AM. De- layed access to health care: risk factors, reasons, and consequences. Amals of Interlral Medicilre 1991;114 (4):325-3 1. Young TK. The Health of Nafive Americans: Toward a Bi- cultural Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Il7troduction and Summary 17 Chapter 2 Patterns of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Introduction 21 Long-Term Tobacco-Use Trends and Behavior Among Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 22 African Americans 22 Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking 22 Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily 23 Quitting Behavior 25 Women of Reproductive Age 26 Young People 28 American Indians and Alaska Natives 44 Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking 44 Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily 45 Quitting Behavior 46 Women of Reproductive Age 48 Young People 49 Regional and Tribal Tobacco Use 50 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 56 Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking 56 Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily 56 Quitting Behavior 57 Women of Reproductive Age 57 Young People 59 State and Local Smoking Estimates 60 Cigarette Smoking in Asian Countries 65 Hispanics 66 Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking 66 Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily 69 Quitting Behavior 70 Women of Reproductive Age 71 Young People 72 Retrospective Analyses of Smoking Prevalence Among African Americans and Hispanics 74 Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking Among Successive Birth Cohorts 74 African Americans 74 Hispanics 75 Long-Term Trends in Cigarette-Smoking Initiation 78 African Americans 78 Hispanics 78 Cigarette Brand Preferences 79 Effects of Education and Race/Ethnicity on Cigarette-Smoking Behavior 83 Current Smoking 85 Smoking Cessation 85 Heavy Smoking 85 Ever Smoking 85 Occasional Smoking 86 Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke 86 Comparisons Between Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups in Current Tobacco Use 87 Cigarette Smoking 87 Pipe and Cigar Use 92 Use of Smokeless Tobacco 94 Conclusions 94 Appendix 1. Sources of Data 95 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 95 Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES) 9.5 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) 95 Adult Use of Tobacco Survey (AUTS) 96 Monitoring the Future (MTF) Surveys 96 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 96 Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey (TAPS) 96 Appendix 2. Measures of Tobacco Use 97 Cigarette Smoking and Cessation 97 Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily 97 Use of Cigars, Pipes, and Smokeless Tobacco 97 Appendix 3. Patterns of Cigarette Use Among Whites 98 Appendix 4. Patterns of Cigarette Use Among African Americans 722 Appendix 5. Validation of the Retrospective Assessment of Smoking Prevalence 122 References 12.5 TC~JOCCO Use Anrorzg U.S. Racial/Ethic Mixority Groups Introduction Over the past 15 years, the prevalence of ciga- rette smoking has generally declined among adult African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. Nevertheless, rates of ciga- rette smoking and other tobacco use are still high among certain racial/ethnic minority groups compared with among the overall population, particularly American Indians and Alaska Natives. Designing more successful public health efforts to reduce tobacco-related diseases and deaths in racial / ethnic populations requires greater understanding of these racial/ethnic patterns of tobacco use. This chapter summarizes bon smoking beha\?ors such as current tobacco use, cigarette consumption, and quit- ting behavior among adults vary within and among racial/ethnic groups. In addition, for all racial/ ethnic groups, the prel.alence of cigarette smoking is examined for two groups of special interest, xvomen of reproductive age and adolescents. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize in one source the reported trends and patterns of tobacco use among members of the four racial/ethnic minor- ity groups, by gender, age, and level of education. In addition, newly compiled information is presented on smoking patterns by birth cohort (based on year of birth) for African Americans and Hispanics. The rela- tionship between racial/ethnic group and education as predictors of cigarette smoking is explored, and data on cigarette brand preference and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke are presented. The in- fluence of acculturation on smoking behavior is ex- amined among the two fastest growing immigrant groups to the United States-Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and Hispanics. Although reports of the effects of acculturation vary widely in the litera- ture, it is an important correlate of behavior despite limitations in conceptualization, operationalization, and measurement. The analyses presented in this chapter incorpo- rate data from national and state-specific population- based surveys of adults, national population-based surveys of adolescents, and local and international surveys of various adult and adolescent populations. The national studies cited in this chapter include the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (197%1995), which garners yearly data on cigarette smoking; the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (1987-1992), which collects information on behavioral risks among adults in the United States; the Adult Use of Tobacco Survey, which has been conducted periodi- cally since 1964; the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES), which gathered de- mographic and cigarette-smoking information from Hispanics between 1982 and 1984; the Monitoring the Future (MTF) surveys, which have been conducted in high schools annually since 1975; and the Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey (TAPS), conducted in 1989 and 1993. Appendix 1 describes these major data sources, and Appendix 2 details the various measures of tobacco use. Appendix 3 presents data on patterns of cigarette use among whites that can be compared with the racial/ethnic group data presented in the chapter. Appendix 4 presents supplementary data on patterns of tobacco use among African Americans, and Appendix 5 describes how the authors validated one of the analytic techniques used to retro- spectively estimate smoking prevalence. The analyses in this chapter update and expand on previous Surgeon General's reports that describe tobacco use among racial/ethnic groups; most of these previous reports have focused on cigarette smoking only among African Americans (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare [USDHEW] 1979; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS] 1983,1988,1989,1990a). For some analyses reported here, small sample sizes limit the precision of the estimates. The patterns described in the text generally use point estimates, but confi- dence intervals presented in most tables can be referred to when the precision of the estimates needs to be defined. P~ttcrns of Tohcco Use 21 Long-Term Tobacco-Use Trends and Behavior Among Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups African Americans Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking The overall prevalence of cigarette smoking among African Americans declined from 37.3 percent in 197881980 to 26.5 percent in 1994-1995, according to data from the NHIS (Table 1) (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHSI, public use data tapes, 1978- 1995). Between 1978 and 1995, the prevalence of cur- rent smoking among African American men fell from 45.0 to 31.4 percent, whereas the prevalence among African American women fell from 31.4 to 22.7 per- cent. Although the prevalence of smoking among African American men remained consistently higher than that among African American women, the gen- der differential in smoking prevalence narrowed over the 18-year period. Similar patterns have been observed since 1965 among both African Americans and whites (Figure 1) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 1994~). Magnitudes of decline in smoking prevalence also differed by age (Table 1). Between 1978 and 1995, Table 1. Percentage of adult African Americans who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic 7% KI$ % I-c1 7% KI % KI % +c1 % fC1 Total 37.3 1.7 35.3 1.4 32.3 1.1 27.9 1.1 27.0 1.5 26.5 1.7 Gender Men Women 45.0 2.5 40.2 2.2 37.6 1.8 34.1 1.8 32.4 2.5 31.4 2.7 31.4 1.8 31.4 1.7 28.0 1.4 22.9 1.3 22.6 1.6 22.7 1.9 Age (years) 18-34 38.7 2.8 34.7 2.1 32.0 1.7 26.0 1.7 22.1 2.2 21.0 2.4 35-54 43.9 2.4 42.2 2.7 37.2 1.9 35.6 1.9 35.9 2.7 34.2 3.0 255 26.5 2.4 27.8 2.4 26.1 2.0 20.0 2.0 22.3 2.8 23.5 2.8 Education5 Less than high school 36.4 2.3 38.7 2.1 36.3 2.0 33.1 2.2 34.2 3.4 34.8 3.3 High school 42.1 2.6 39.4 2.8 38.8 2.1 33.5 1.9 31.9 2.7 31.3 3.1 Some college 36.7 5.5 34.8 3.4 33.0 2.7 28.9 2.8 27.5 3.2 26.4 3.7 College 34.6 6.7 28.4 4.3 19.7 3.2 17.8 2.9 18.2 4.2 16.7 3.8 *Excludes African Americans who reported they were of Hispanic origin. For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. t95% confidence interval. 41ncludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. African Americans 18-34 years of age experienced the largest decline in smoking prevalence, from 38.7 to 21.0 percent, whereas African Americans aged 55 years and older experienced the smallest decline, from 26.5 to 23.5 percent. In the years 1978-1980, persons 18-34 years of age were nearly 1.5 times more likely to smoke than those 55 years of age or older. By 1994 and 1995, however, because of the differential decline in smok- ing prevalence, the prevalence of smoking among younger adults was as low as that among their older counterparts. The prevalence of cigarette smoking among Af- rican Americans decreased most among college gradu- ates (Table 11-a pattern that has been found in the nation as a whole (Pierce et al. 1989). Among African American college graduates, the smoking prel'alence fell from 34.6 percent in 1978-1980 to 16.7 percent in 1994-1995. In comparison, smoking pre\.alence among African Americans with less than 12 years of educa- tion was 36.4 percent in 1978-1980 and 34.8 percent in 1994-1995. In the years 1978-1980, the prevalence of smoking varied little by level of education. However, by 1994 and 1995, an inverse relationship had emerged. As the level of education increased, the prevalence of cigarette smoking decreased. Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily The percentage of African American smokers who reported that they were light smokers (smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day) increased from 56.0 percent in 19781980 to 63.9 percent in 1994-1995, ac- cording to the NHIS data (Table 2) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978-l 993). This upward trend was found across all sociodemographic groups, with men, per- sons less than 35 years of age, and college graduates experiencing the largest increases in light smoking. Throughout the l&year period, African Ameri- can I~~omen ~`110 smoked were consistently more likely than their male counterparts to smoke fewer than 15 cigarettes per day (Table 2). African American smok- ers 18-34 years of age were slightly more likely than Figure 1. Trends in the prevalence of cigarette smoking among African American and white men and women, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 60- 0 ( 1965 I 1970 I 1975 I 1980 Year I I I 1985 1990 1995 African - American men African - American women White men 111, White women Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965, 1966, 1970, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980,1983,1985,1987,1988,1990,1991,1992,1993,1994, and 1995. Table 2. Percentage of adult African American smokers* who reported smoking <15,15-24, or 225 cigarettes per day, overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic 7c *c1$ % KI % fC1 % +c1 % +c1 % +c1 Total < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Gender Men < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Women < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Age (years) 18-34 < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 35-54 < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 2 55 < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 56.0 2.2 55.4 2.5 58.8 2.0 60.6 2.2 63.3 3.0 63.9 3.5 33.6 2.2 35.2 2.4 32.8 1.9 31.9 2.1 31.1 2.8 28.4 3.2 10.4 1.7 9.4 1.6 8.4 1.2 7.5 1.2 5.6 1.3 7.6 2.1 50.4 3.2 52.3 3.8 53.2 3.1 55.2 3.1 59.3 4.5 61.1 5.1 37.1 3.6 36.3 3.4 37.0 3.1 35.6 3.1 34.4 4.2 28.6 4.7 12.5 2.3 11.4 2.6 9.8 1.7 9.2 1.9 6.3 2.0 10.3 3.7 62.2 3.2 58.6 3.1 65.0 2.7 67.1 2.6 67.9 3.8 67.1 4.2 29.8 2.8 34.1 2.8 28.2 2.4 27.5 2.5 27.4 3.6 28.3 4.0 8.1 2.3 7.3 1.5 6.8 1.3 5.4 1.3 4.7 1.5 4.6 1.7 59.8 3.6 56.9 3.7 64.1 2.9 67.2 3.4 69.5 5.1 70.0 5.5 31.7 3.3 34.4 3.3 28.5 2.7 26.6 3.2 25.5 4.8 23.3 5.3 8.5 2.3 8.7 2.3 7.4 1.7 6.2 1.8 5.1 2.1 6.7 2.7 51.2 3.4 31.0 4.1 52.1 3.1 54.6 3.4 60.4 4.3 58.9 5.2 35.6 3.7 37.7 3.9 37.7 3.1 36.9 3.2 33.2 4.1 32.2 4.8 13.2 2.7 11.3 2.5 10.2 1.7 8.5 1.9 6.3 2.1 8.9 3.6 55.3 5.4 60.4 5.6 59.1 5.2 60.4 4.8 59.0 6.5 66.7 6.6 34.8 5.6 32.3 5.9 33.6 5.0 31.9 4.7 36.3 6.4 27.3 6.0 9.9 4.8 7.4 3.1 7.3 2.5 7.7 2.7 4.7 2.7 6.0 3.8 *Excludes African Americans who reported they were of Hispanic origin. For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95% confidence interval. their older counterparts to be light smokers (except for the years 1983-1985). An association between edu- cation and light smoking became apparent in 1990-1991. In 1990 and beyond, among smokers, education was directly related to the proportion of smokers who smoked fewer than 15 cigarettes per day. As the level of education increased, the proportion smoking lightly also increased. Throughout the 18-year period, the prevalence of heavy smoking (smoking 25 or more cigarettes per 24 Cl7i7ytrr 2 i%bacco Use Amo7zg U.S. Racinl/Etlznic Minorify Groups Table 2. Continued 197%1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic 7c +c1* % 3x1 % +c1 7c +a Yc KI x KI Education5 Less than high school < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes High school < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Some college < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes College < 15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 125 cigarettes 53.1 4.0 56.0 4.1 57.3 3.1 57.3 3.4 57.7 5.5 56.1 6.0 33.5 3.6 32.7 4.0 32.7 3.3 33.5 3.3 33.9 5.4 32.5 5.6 13.4 3.1 11.3 3.1 10.0 2.2 9.2 2.3 8.4 3.0 11.5 4.5 53.9 4.7 52.4 4.4 58.3 3.6 59.0 3.7 62.7 4.6 64.0 5.7 34.9 4.8 40.6 4.1 33.2 3.5 34.8 3.6 33.4 4.4 29.2 4.9 11.2 3.6 6.9 2.1 8.5 1.9 6.2 1.6 3.9 1.8 6.8 3.9 49.7 7.5 48.6 6.6 56.3 4.7 60.9 5.6 63.4 7.0 63.0 8.4 37.6 6.1 37.4 6.8 34.7 4.7 32.2 5.5 31.0 6.8 32.2 8.2 12.7 5.9 14.1 5.1 9.0 3.1 6.9 2.9 5.6 3.1 4.9 2.5 57.1 10.2 50.9 9.7 55.2 9.6 65.0 9.3 74.7 10.0 79.0 9.9 34.1 9.0 35.6 10.9 38.2 9.6 24.9 7.9 20.6 9.5 18.1 9.5 8.8 5.5 13.5 9.4 6.7 3.4 10.1 6.7 4.7 4.0 2.9 3.5 gIncludes persons aged 25 vears and older. Source: National Center fir Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. day) was higher among African American men than among women, and it was higher among respondents 3554 years of age than among their younger and older counterparts (Table 2). No clear patterns emerged in the relationship between education and the prevalence of heavy smoking. Quitting Behavior Between 1978 and 1995, the overall prevalence of smoking cessation (the percentage of persons who have ever smoked 100 cigarettes and who have quit smoking) among African Americans increased from 26.8 to 35.4 percent, according to data from the NHIS (Table 3) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978-1995). The prevalence of cessation generally increased over time across all gender, age, and education categories. The largest increases were among persons 55 years of age or older and college graduates. Throughout the 18-year period, the prevalence of smoking cessation remained higher among persons 55 years of age or older than among their younger counterparts (Table 3). Since 1983, college graduates have been generally more likely to quit smoking than persons with less than 16 years of education. Attempts to quit smoking during the previous year and short-term success at quitting were measured in a multivariate analysis of the 1991 NHIS data (CDC 1993). After statistical control was made for gender, age, education, and poverty status, African Americans were more likely than whites to stop smoking for at least one day during the previous year. However, Af- rican Americans who had stopped smoking for at least one day were less likely than whites to have quit for at least one month. Data from the National Cancer Institute (NC11 Supplement of the 1992-l 993 Current Population Sur- vey (CPS) indicate that among adults who were daily smokers one year before being surveyed, African Americans who had tried to quit for at least one day were slightly more likely than whites to have relapsed to daily smoking. African Americans were also slightly more likely than whites to have become occasional smokers (i.e., to be smoking on only some days) and slightly less likely to have quit smoking (Table 4) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, public use data tapes, Patterns of Tobacco Use 25 Table 3. Percentage of adult African American ever smokers who have quit,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic 9% &CIS % fC1 70 +c1 % +c1 - Total 26.8 1.7 30.0 1.8 31.8 1.6 36.1 1.8 Gender Men Women Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 Educations Less than high school High school Some college College 28.7 2.0 33.5 2.6 33.9 2.3 36.8 2.5 24.5 2.5 26.2 2.5 29.4 2.1 35.2 2.4 17.9 2.8 20.2 2.8 18.8 2.3 21.0 2.6 27.7 2.6 29.5 2.9 33.1 2.6 35.2 2.6 42.3 4.0 47.0 3.6 49.2 3.0 57.3 3.6 32.6 2.7 32.7 2.5 35.0 2.5 38.0 3.3 24.4 3.4 28.8 3.6 27.3 2.7 32.4 2.6 32.4 5.9 35.0 4.7 36.6 4.0 38.1 4.4 29.8 8.6 37.0 6.9 50.2 6.1 51.3 6.1 % tc1 % XI 37.0 2.4 35.4 2.6 39.1 3.5 34.9 3.7 34.5 3.1 35.9 3.4 23.7 4.6 19.6 4.1 33.2 3.4 33.1 4.0 56.8 4.4 54.7 4.4 40.0 4.2 36.8 4.0 33.4 3.8 31.6 4.3 39.0 5.3 37.3 6.3 48.7 8.7 51.1 8.5 *Excludes African Americans who reported they were of Hispanic origin. The prevalence of cessation is the percentage of ever smokers who are former smokers. Former smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they were not smoking, and ever smokers include current and former smokers. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95% confidence interval. %cludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. 1992-1993). Some data suggest that African Ameri- cans may be more likely than whites to be dependent on nicotine (see Chapter 3, Table 18, in the section Racial/Ethnic Differences in Self-Reported Nicotine Dependence; Royce et al. 19931, although a report by Andreski and Breslau (1993) suggests the opposite. African Americans appear to have comparatively lim- ited access to preventive health services, including smoking cessation services (USDHHS 1988; Hymowitz et al. 1991). Women of Reproductive Age Between 1978 and 1995, the prevalence of cur- rent smoking among African American women of re- productive age (18-44 years) declined from 35.4 to 23.4 percent, according to data from the NHIS (Table 5) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978-1995). Women who were college graduates experienced an over- ~~helming decline in smoking prevalence, from 37.0 to 10.8 percent, whereas women with less than a high school education (~12 years) experienced a slight in- crease in the prevalence of current smoking, from 41 .l to 46.3 percent. In the years 1978-1980, the prevalence of smok- ing vraried little by level of education. However, by 1994 and 1995, a marked inverse relationship between smoking and educational level had emerged. As the level of education increased, the prevalence of smok- ing decreased. This inverse relationship has also been found in other studies of women of reproductive age (CDC 1991 a, 1994b). National data on tobacco use and pregnancy are available from the 1967 and 1980 National Natality Tobacco USC ~4tno~zg U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Table 4. Current cigarette smoking status among persons* who reported that they were daily smokers 1 year before being surveyed, Current Population Survey National Cancer Institute Supplement, 1992-1993 Currrent smoking status American Asian Indians/ Americans/ African Alaska Pacific Americans Natives Islanders Hispanics Whites Total x =I+ p% kc1 %kcI I kc1 R KI % &CI Smoke every day; did not try to quit for at least one day during the previous year Smoke every day; did try to quit for at least one day during the previous year Smoke on some days Do not smoke cigarettes; abstinent for l-90 davs Do not smoke cigarettes; abstinent for 91-364 days 59.8 I.5 62.8 5.5 57.8 4.4 59.8 2.3 63.1 0.5 62.5 0.5 29.7 1.4 28.9 5.1 32.0 4.2 28.5 2.1 26.0 0.5 26.6 0.4 5.6 0.7 3.7 2.1 4.8 1.9 5.6 1.1 3.7 0.2 4.0 0.2 2.2 0.5 1.8 1.5 2.5 1.4 2.5 0.7 3.4 0.2 3.2 0.2 2.7 0.5 2.8 1.9 2.9 1.5 3.6 0.9 3.8 0.2 3.7 0.2 "Aged 18 years and older; N = 44,272. `95% confidence interval. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, public use data tapes, 1992-1993. Surveys, the 1982 and 1988 National Surveys of Fam- ily Growth, the 1985 and 1990 NHISs, the 1988 Na- tional Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS), and the 1992-1993 National Pregnancy and Health Survey. Furthermore, since 1989, national trend data on smoking and pregnancy have become readily avail- able from information collected on the revised U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth, which is included as part of U.S. final natality statistics compiled each calendar year (NCHS 1992, 1993, 1994; Ventura et al. 1994). Among the earliest sources of national trend data on smoking during pregnancy were the National Na- tality Surveys, which were administered to a national sample of married mothers of live infants born in 1967 and 1980 (Kleinman and Kopstein 1987; USDHHS 1989). Among African American mothers ~20 years of age, smoking rates remained virtually constant over time at about 27 percent. The smoking prevalence among African American mothers aged 220 years de- clined from 33 percent in 1967 to 23 percent in 1980. The National Survey of Family Growth collected data in 1982 and 1988 on the smoking behavior of females 1544 years of age during their most recent pregnancy. In 1982,29.2 percent of African American women re- ported smoking during their most recent pregnancy, compared with 23.4 percent in 1988 (Pamuk and Mosher 1992; Chandra 1995). More recent data from U.S. final natality statistics indicate that smoking rates for African Americans during pregnancy declined from 17.1 percent in 1989 to 10.6 percent in 1995 (Table 6). Smoking rates declined for African American teen- aged mothers from 1989 through 1995 but remained virtually unchanged for African American adult moth- ers aged 2049 years during those years (NCHS 1992, 1993,1994; Ventura et al. 1994,1995,19961. In general, African American adolescent mothers were less likely to have smoked than mothers 20-49 years Table 5. Percentage of African smokers,* overall and aggregate data American women of reproductive age who reported being current cigarette by education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 Characteristic Total 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ lPPO-lPPl+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ % KIS % KI % *a % KI % _+CI % _+CI 35.4 2.3 34.1 2.0 30.6 1.8 25.4 1.6 23.8 2.1 23.4 2.4 Education5 Less than high school 41.1 5.6 52.4 5.7 48.2 4.2 44.5 4.7 45.7 6.9 46.3 7.8 High school 36.3 4.0 36.8 3.8 34.5 3.0 31.6 3.0 30.0 3.8 28.4 4.3 Some college 37.1 4.8 32.3 5.0 30.6 3.8 26.4 3.4 26.2 4.7 26.1 5.6 College 37.0 10.2 21.8 6.5 20.0 4.3 17.3 4.3 13.1 5.0 10.8 4.9 *Excludes African American women who reported they were of Hispanic origin. For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include women aged 18-44 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include women aged 1844 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95% confidence interval. SIncludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. old-a finding that is consistent with previously published data WSDHHS 1994). Data from the 1988 NMIHS indicate that 27 per- cent of African American mothers sampled reported smoking cigarettes in the 12 months before delivery (Sugarman et al. 1994). The National Pregnancy and Health Survey, conducted between October 1992 and August 1993 and sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), provides nationally represen- tative data on the prevalence of prenatal drug use among females of reproductive age (1544 years). Ac- cording to the National Pregnancy and Health Survey, 19.8 percent of African American women reported us- ing cigarettes during their pregnancies (NIDA 1994). In the 1985 and 1990 NHISs, questions related to smok- ing were asked of women aged 18-44 years who had given birth within the past five years. In 1985, 27.5 percent of African American women smoked during the 12 months before the birth and 22.6 percent smoked after learning of their pregnancy; in 1990, 19 percent smoked during the year before the birth and 14.1 per- cent after learning of their pregnancy (Floyd et al. 1993). Young People Cigarette Smoking In the 1970s and 198Os, the prevalence of ciga- rette smoking declined among both maIe and femaIe African American high school seniors, according to data from the MTF surveys (Figure 2) (Bachman et al. 1991b). The prevalence of daily cigarette smoking, based on two-year rolling averages (percentages cal- culated by averaging the data for the specified year and the previous year to increase racial subgroup sample sizes and stabilize estimates), among African American high school seniors was 24.9 percent in 1977, 4.1 percent in 1993, and 7.0 percent in 1996 (Figure 3) (Johnston et al. 1996; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data from the 1996 MTF surveys). Between 1974 and 1991, signifi- cant declines in the prevalence of cigarette smoking also were observed among African American adoles- cents participating in the National HousehoId Surveys on Drug Abuse (NHSDAs) as well as among African Americans 18 and 19 years of age who participated in the NHISs (Nelson et al. 1995). 28 Chrzptcr 2 T3mCL) Use Ajnong U.S. Racial/Ethic Minority Groups Table 6. Percentage of live-born infants' mothers who reported smoking during pregnancy, by year and race/ ethnicity, U.S. final natality statistics, 1989-1995 Race of mother* African American American Indian and Alaska Kative Asian American and Pacific Islander' Chinese Filipino Hawaiian and part Hawaiian %I?yzian American or Pacific Islander White 17.1 15.9 14.6 13.8 12.7 11.4 10.6 23.0 22.4 22.6 22.5 21.6 21.0 20.9 5.7 5.5 5.2 4.8 4.3 3.6 3.4 2.7 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.1 0.9 0.8 5.1 5.3 5.3 4.8 4.3 3.7 3.4 19.3 21.0 19.4 18.5 17.2 16.0 15.9 8.2 8.0 7.5 6.6 6.7 5.4 5.2 4.2 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.9 20.4 Hispanic origin of mothert Hispanic origin Cuban Central and South American Mexican American Other and unknown Hispanic Puerto Rican African American, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic 8.0 6.7 6.3 5.8 5.0 4.6 4.3 6.9 6.4 6.2 5.9 5.0 4.8 4.1 3.6 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.3 1.8 1.8 6.3 5.3 4.8 4.3 3.7 3.4 3.1 12.1 10.8 10.7 10.1 9.3 8.1 8.2 14.5 13.6 13.2 12.7 11.2 10.9 10.4 17.2 15.9 14.6 13.8 12.7 11.5 10.6 21.7 21.0 20.5 19.7 18.6 17.7 17.1 Total 19.5 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 19.4 18.4 18.8 17.8 17.9 16.9 16.8 15.8 15.6 14.6 15.0 13.9 *Includes data for 43 states and the District of Columbia (DC) in 1989,45 states and DC in 1990, and 46 states and DC in 1991-1995. Excludes data for California, Indiana, New York (but includes New York City), and South Dakota in 1994 and 1995; Oklahoma in 1989-1990; and Louisiana and Nebraska in 1989, which did not require the reporting of mother's tobacco use during pregnancy on the birth certificate. White and African American racial groups include persons of Hispanic and non-Hispanic origin. +Maternal tobacco use during pregnancy was not reported on the birth certificates in California and New York, which together accounted for 43-66 percent of the births in each Asian subgroup (except Hawaiian) during 1989-1991. `Includes data for 42 states and DC in 1989,44 states and DC in 1990,45 states and DC in 1991-1992, and 46 states and DC in 1993-1995. Excludes data for California, Indiana, New York (but includes New York City), and South Dakota in 1994 and 1995; Oklahoma in 1989-1990; and Louisiana and Nebraska in 1989, which did not require the reporting of either Hispanic origin of mother or tobacco use during pregnancy on the birth certificate. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics 1996; Ventura et al. 1996, 1997. `The prevalence of cigarette smoking among Af- rican American adolescents has been substantially lower than the prevalence among white and Hispanic adolescents (Figures 2 and 3) (Bachman et al. 1991b; USDHHS 1994; CDC 1996; Johnston et al. 1996). Lo- cal, more limited surveys have also shown similar differences in cigarette smoking prevalence between African American and white youths (for example, Sheridan et al. 1993; Greenlund et al. 1996). In addition to the slight increases in the 1990s in smoking prevalence among African American high school seniors (Figures 2 and 3), CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) detected an increase in the prevalence of cigarette smoking from 1991 to 1995 Patterns of Tobacco Use 29 Figure 2. 35- 25- Trends in daily smoking* among African American and white high school seniors, by gender, United States, 1977-1996 0 ; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 Year - African American males - African American females ---- White males - . - . . White females Note: To increase racial subgroup sample sizes and stabilize estimates, the percentages were calculated by averaging the data for the specified year and the previous year. *Daily smoking is defined as smoking one or more cigarettes per day during the previous 30 days. Source: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data from the Monitoring the Future surveys, 1976-1996. among male African American high school students (CDC 1996). The prevalence of previous-month smoking among African American male high school students increased from 14.1 percent in 1991 to 27.8 percent in 1995. Among female African American high school students, prevalence was 11.3 percent in 1991 and 12.2 percent in 1995 (CDC 1996). Data from the MTF surveys indicate that the prevalence of daily smoking increased more rapidly from 1993 to 1996 for male than for female African American high school seniors (Figure 2) (Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data from the MTF surveys, 1976-19961. Yet even with this increase, the prevalence of smoking among African American high school seniors was still lower than that for members of other racial/ethnic groups during 1990- 1994 (Table 7). The trend of lower smoking prevalences among African American adolescents observed in recent years has continued as these individuals age and become young adults, according to the NHIS data. From 1978 through 1995, the prevalence of current smoking de- clined more among African Americans aged 20-24 years than among whites of the same ages, regardless of gen- der (Table 8) or level of formal education (Table 9) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978-1995). In addition, among persons 25-29 and 30-34 years of age, recent declines in smoking prevalence were greater for Afri- can Americans than for whites (Table 8) (Figure 4). In addition to the recent increases seen among African American high school seniors (Figures 2 and 31, the MTF surveys indicate that previous-month smoking prevalence (based on two-year rolling aver- ages) among eighth-grade African American students 30 Chnpfer 2 Figure 3. 35- 25- Tobncco Use Among U.S. RncinllEtknic Minority Groups Trends in daily smoking* among African American, Hispanic, and white high school seniors, United States, 1977-1996 "I I I 19f9 I I I I I I I I I 19k9 I I I 19$3 I 1945 I 1977 1981 1983 1985 1987 1991 Year - African Americans - Hispanics mm-0 Whites Note: To increase racial subgroup sample sizes and stabilize estimates, the percentages were calculated by averaging the data for the specified year and the previous year. *Daily smoking is defined as smoking one or more cigarettes per day during the previous 30 days. Sources: Johnston et al. 1996; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data, 1996. increased from 5.3 percent in 1992 to 9.6 percent in 1996; among ninth-grade African American students, the prevalence increased from 6.6 percent in 1992 to 12.2 percent in 1996 (Johnston et al. 1996; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data from the 1996 MTF surveys). These recent pat- terns among African American adolescents suggest that the progress seen among young adults (Table 8) may reverse itself in the future. Possible biases. The accuracy of the finding that African American youths have been smoking less than white youths has been called into question. For ex- ample, trends observed may have resulted from arti- factual phenomena such as differential dropout rates OT misclassification bias. Differrntirr2 dropout rates. Some investigators have hypothesized that the data may be biased for two rea- sons. First, the data from school-based surveys exclude youths who are school dropouts. Second, because African American youths have a higher dropout rate than do white youths, the smoking prevalence rates may be more biased for African American youths than for white youths. However, this bias should only be apparent in the school surveys. The proportion of young adults (aged 25-29 years) who have completed at least four years of high school increased from 74 percent in 1976 to 83 percent in 1993 for African Ameri- cans; for whites, this proportion was 86 percent in 1976 and 87 percent in 1993 (Kominski and Adams 1994). The increasing rate of completing at least four years of high school among African American young adults, relative to whites, is not consistent with the hypoth- esis that the trend in smoking prevalence observed in school surveys is related to the dropout rate. Further- more, in household surveys, the trends in smok- ing prevalence among African Americans have also Potterm of Tobacco Use 31 Table 7. Trends in the percentage of high school seniors who were previous-month smokers, by race/ ethnicity and gender, Monitoring the Future surveys, United States, 1976-1979,1980-1984, 1985-1989,1990-1994 1976-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 Males African American 33.1 19.4 15.6 11.6 American Indian and Alaska Native 50.3 39.6 36.8 41.1 Asian American and Pacific Islander 20.7 21.5 16.8 20.6 Hispanic 30.3 23.8 23.3 28.5 White 35.0 27.5 29.8 33.4 Females African American 33.6 22.8 13.3 8.6 American Indian and Alaska Native 55.3 50.0 43.6 39.4 Asian American and Pacific Islander 24.4 16.0 14.3 13.8 Hispanic 31.4 25.1 20.6 19.2 White 39.1 34.2 34.0 33.1 Note: The Institute for Social Research usually reports the N (weighted), which is approximately equal to the sample size. Cases are weighted to account for differential probability of selection and then normalized to average 1 .O. For males, the ranges of the N (weighted) for each of the cells in this table are 2,9164,393 for African Americans, 342-587 for American Indians and Alaska Natives, 242-1,166 for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, 893-2,808 for Hispanics, and 24,931-31,954 for whites. For females, the ranges of the N (weighted) for each of the cells in this table are 3,982-5,716 for African Americans, 299-586 for American Indians and Alaska Natives, 22%1,143 for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, 940-2,723 for Hispanics, and 25,627-31,933 for whites. Sources: Bachman et al. 1991a; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data. become lower than those for whites (Nelson et al. 1995). Finally, data from the 1989 TAPS have shown that Af- rican American youths-both active students and dropouts-are significantly less likely than white youths to have smoked recently. Among students 17 and 18 years of age who remained in school, African Americans (5.7 percent) were less likely than whites (19.3 percent) to have smoked in the previous week (CDC 1991b). Among youths who left school, 17.1 percent of African Americans and 46.1 percent of whites had smoked in the previous week. Similarly, 1991 NHSDA data show that among youths 16-18 years old, 7.2 percent of African American high school seniors and 27.7 percent of white high school seniors had smoked in the previous month, compared with 30.4 percent of African American dropouts and 72.2 percent of white dropouts (Kopstein and Roth 1993). Thus, dropout status does not account for the lower smoking prevalence among African American youths. Differetltinl misclassifimtion bins. Other research- ers have proposed that in recent years, African Ameri- can youths may have been more likely to misclassify their smoking status when questioned. No trend data are available on differences in misclassification of smoking status over time between African Americans and whites. However, data from the 1976-1992 MTF surveys have been used to compare the trends of high school seniors' reports of smoking by their friends-a measure for which they would have little reason to underreport (Johnston et al. 1993b; USDHHS 1994). Until 1993, the percentage of African American seniors who reported that most or all of their friends smoke declined substantially more than that of white seniors. Since 1993, an increase in this measure has been ob- served for African Americans, but not for whites (Bachman et al. 1980a, 1980b, 1981, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1991a, 1993a, 1993b, 1997; Johnston et al. 1980a, 1980b, 1982,1984,1986,1991,1992,1993a, 1995b, 1997). This observation may be limited by the fact that African American and white youths have friends from several ethnic groups. Bauman and Ennett (1994) recently assessed misclassification bias in a household survey of ado- lescents 12-14 years of age, using carbon monoxide and salivary cotinine (a nicotine metabolite) as bioIogica1 32 Chapter 2 fi7bm~o USC Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Table 8. Percentage of African Americans and whites 20-34 years of age who reported being current cigarette smokers,* by age group and gender, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 197&1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic 7c +cP 7r tc1 c/c KI % fCI 7% fCI % +CI Aged 20-24 years African Americans Total Men Women Whites Total Men Women Aged 25-29 years African Americans Total Men Women Whites Total Men Women Aged 30-34 years African Americans Total Men Women Whites Total Men Women 37.3 4.3 32.0 3.6 24.7 2.9 16.8 2.7 15.0 4.1 13.7 3.9 44.8 6.8 31.6 6.2 25.4 5.0 21.3 4.8 20.3 7.6 19.6 7.3 31.8 4.4 32.3 3.8 24.1 3.3 13.1 2.5 10.7 3.4 8.9 3.3 35.6 1.6 35.5 1.6 30.4 1.5 28.4 1.5 32.0 2.3 33.3 2.5 37.2 2.2 34.1 2.3 30.5 2.3 28.0 2.3 32.2 3.1 34.9 3.6 34.0 2.0 36.X 2.2 30.3 1.8 28.8 2.0 32.4 3.1 31.6 3.3 41.5 3.9 39.0 3.9 38.3 3.4 30.5 3.3 21.7 3.6 21.0 4.3 47.6 4.9 41.6 6.2 43.1 5.5 35.9 5.7 21.3 5.9 22.6 7.6 36.5 5.8 36.8 4.6 34.3 3.7 26.1 3.6 22.1 4.5 19.6 5.3 38.4 1.4 36.2 1.5 34.7 1.3 30.8 1.3 31.2 1.9 32.2 2.1 42.3 2.0 38.3 2.2 34.5 1.8 31.2 1.9 31.9 2.7 32.6 3.1 34.7 2.0 34.1 1.9 35.0 1.7 30.5 1.7 30.6 2.5 31.9 2.8 43.0 5.1 40.8 4.5 41.0 3.1 36.5 3.0 34.2 4.2 31.9 4.3 50.2 8.2 45.5 7.1 43.6 5.1 38.9 4.8 38.3 6.9 31.2 6.8 37.5 6.0 37.1 4.6 38.9 3.6 34.5 3.6 30.8 4.9 32.5 5.7 38.6 1.8 34.4 1.5 33.1 1.3 31.1 1.2 32.9 1.7 30.7 1.8 43.1 2.5 37.3 2.2 35.9 1.8 32.7 1.7 33.1 2.4 31.3 2.6 34.2 2.3 31.5 1.9 30.4 1.6 29.6 1.5 32.7 2.2 30.2 2.6 - - *For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95oic confidence interval. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. markers for tobacco use. Among adolescents who re- white adolescents were three times more likely than ported that they did not smoke, African Americans African American adolescents to test positive for car- were more likely than whites to test positive for car- bon monoxide, suggesting that whites in this study bon monoxide and for cotinine. Overall, however, were substantially more likely to smoke, regardless of Przttrrm of Tobacco Use 33 Table 9. Percentage of African Americans and whites 20-24 years of age who reported being current cigarette smokers,* by education and gender, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic % +_c1t 7c +c1 % +c1 % +c1 % +c1 Yo K-1 212 years' education African Americans Total Men Women Whites Total Men Women 41.9 5.2 49.1 7.9 35.9 6.3 45.2 1.8 47.8 2.8 42.7 2.6 213 years' education African Americans Total Men Women Whites Total Men Women 26.4 6.4 32.0 11.3 23.5 6.7 21.6 2.0 22.0 2.5 21.2 2.5 38.6 4.5 30.4 3.7 22.8 3.9 18.5 5.4 16.7 5.4 38.2 7.7 29.6 6.3 28.9 6.9 21.9 9.4 22.2 10.1 38.9 4.9 31.0 4.5 17.8 3.5 15.2 5.1 12.5 5.0 48.3 2.3 44.2 2.1 40.5 2.4 46.9 3.2 45.4 4.2 47.8 3.5 46.2 3.2 40.5 3.4 47.5 4.8 47.1 5.8 48.7 2.9 42.3 2.8 40.5 3.1 46.4 4.5 43.6 5.6 17.3 4.4 12.4 3.7 7.2 2.9 9.0 5.3 9.3 5.6 15.6 7.9 13.3 7.0 9.2 5.3 16.6 12.4 15.9 10.6 18.5 6.6 11.9 4.0 5.5 3.0 4.6 4.0 3.1 3.0 18.2 1.8 15.4 1.5 16.0 1.5 19.0 2.6 23.6 2.8 15.8 2.4 14.0 2.0 14.5 2.4 17.6 3.5 24.6 4.2 20.5 2.6 16.7 2.1 17.3 2.1 20.3 3.5 22.7 3.8 - *For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. *95% confidence interval. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. differential misclassification. In a study of young reports of cigarette smoking with measured carbon adults 18-30 years old, Wagenknecht and colleagues monoxide from expired air. The investigators found (1992) also found differential misclassification, with that the sensitivity for self-reports was slightly lower African Americans (5.7 percent) more likely than for African Americans than for whites, but the magni- whites (2.8 percent) to misclassify themselves as non- tude of the effect was small. When self-reported smok- smokers. However, these researchers suggested that ing rates were adjusted for carbon monoxide values, their results may have been influenced by differential at every grade level African American students had exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and by dif- significantly lower smoking prevalences than whites. ferences in nicotine metabolism. Using a sample of Although the phenomenon of differential mis- seventh- through tenth-grade New York State public classification may need further investigation, no evi- school students, Wills and Cleary (1997) compared self- dence indicates that misclassification bias explains the Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minorify Groups Figure 4. Trends in smoking* among African Americans and whites aged 20-34 years, United States, 1978-1995 African Americans 0 I III II `1 11 11 1 " 1 ""I""""" 1978-80 1983-85 1987-88 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 Year Whites lo- 0 III'1 II I I ' l `1 " " ""J""""' 1978-80 1983-85 1987-88 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 Year a 8 m a Aged 20-24 - Aged 25-29 - Aged 30-34 *For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. Source: National Health Interview Surveys, National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995; see Table 8 for corresponding data. Patterns of Tobacco Use 35 substantial decline in smoking prevalence reported by African American youths. Possible behavioral, sociodemographic, and attitudinal explanations. Exploring possible interac- tions between the use of alcohol or other drugs and changes in cigarette smoking among African American and white adolescents may yield important scientific data. Understanding the trends of smoking behavior in the context of factors such as the age when youths start smoking, background and lifestyle factors, and attitudes about smoking may help program develop- ers design better smoking prevention and control in- terventions for these and other population subgroups. Differelztinl 115~ of dwr drugs. MTF data were ana- lyzed to explore possible interactions between the use of alcohol or other drugs and changes in cigarette smoking among African American and white adoles- cents (Table 10) (Figures 5 and 6) (Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, public use data tapes, 1976-1994). Between 1976 and 1994, the per- centage of African American adolescents who were abstinent from (i.e., did not use in the previous month) both cigarettes and other substances (Table 10) was higher than for whites and tended to increase more rapidly for African Americans than for whites in ev- ery category of drug use. For example, 41.7 percent of African American high school seniors surveyed in 1976-1979 were abstinent from cigarettes and alcohol, compared with 64.1 percent in 1990-1994. Among white seniors, 22.4 percent were abstinent from both cigarettes and alcohol in 1976-1979, compared with 37.1 percent in 1990-1994. Concurrent use (i.e., use of both substances in the past month) was lower and tended to decrease more rapidly among African Ameri- can seniors than among white seniors between 1976 and 1994. In addition, trends in the use of cigarettes, alcohol, and other substances among high school se- niors indicate that among both smokers and nonsmok- ers, African Americans were generally less likely than whites to use substances other than tobacco (Table 10). Age qfsnrokillg illitinfim. African American smok- ers initiate smoking at slightly later ages than white smokers, according to the findings of two national studies (Escobedo et al. 1990; CDC 1991~). In addi- tion, data from the 1994-1995 (combined) NHSDAs indicate that among U.S. adults aged 30-39 years who had ever smoked daily, the average ages for first try- ing a cigarette and for becoming a daily smoker were about one year higher for African American males than for white males and about two years higher for African American females than for white females (Table 11) (USDHHS, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, public use data tapes, 1994-1995). These differences in the age of smoking initia- tion are not large enough to suggest that the differ- ences in smoking prevalence currently observed among African American and white adolescents will disappear as these populations age (CDC 1991~). The data presented in Table 11 and by Escobedo and col- leagues (1990) indicate that although African Ameri- cans are more likely than whites to begin smoking in their early 2Os, virtually all smokers in both groups have begun by age 25. Furthermore, the prevalence of cigarette smoking has decreased more rapidly for African Americans than for whites among those persons aged 20-24 years, 25-29 years, and 30-34 years (Table 8), suggesting that a birth cohort effect has occurred. Backpourzd nnd lifestyle frzctnrs. Investigations of background and lifestyle factors have not identified characteristics that might account for the greater de- cline in smoking among African American youths. Wallace and Bachman (1991) analyzed the MTF data and found that the difference was not explained by factors such as parents' education, presence of two parents in the household, location of residence, college plans, academic performance, employment status, religiousness, or political views. To assess the incidence of cigarette smoking among African Ameri- can and white adolescents, Faulkner and colleagues (1996) analyzed longitudinal data from the 1989-1993 TAPS. The analvses were restricted to 3,531 African Americans and whites aged 11-17 years who reported in 1989 that they had never tried cigarettes. After controlling statistically for variables that were snciodemographic (sex, age, and parental education), environmental (household smoking and number of same-sex friends who smoke), personal (beliefs about the perceived benefits of smoking), and behavioral (in- tention to smoke, participation in organized physical activity, and academic performance), the study found that African Americans were significantly less likely than whites to have tried cigarette smoking four years later. Lowry and colleagues (1996) analyzed cross- sectional data on 6,321 adolescents (aged 12-l 7 years) from the YRBS supplement to the 1992 NHIS. African Americans were significantly less likely than whites to have smoked in the previous 30 days. This analysis controlled statistically for the educational level of the responsible adult, for family income, for the age and sex of the adolescent, and for whether the adolescent was in or out of school. Furthermore, the major declines in smoking reported for African American high school seniors have occurred regardless of parents' education; the 36 Clmpfcr 2 Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Table 10. Percentage of African American and white high school seniors who reported recently using or not using cigarettes and other selected substances,* Monitoring the Future surveys, United States, 19761994 aggregate data Cigarette use among African Americans+ Characteristic 1976-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Alcohol use Yes No Marijuana use Yes No Cocaine use Yes No Any illicit drug use* Yes No 22.7 25.9 15.2 31.2 11.0 29.5 7.2 26.2 9.7 41.7 5.3 48.4 3.1 56.4 2.6 64.1 17.2 11.9 11.2 14.2 6.4 7.8 3.1 5.8 15.0 55.9 9.3 65.3 7.6 78.2 6.6 84.5 1.4 0.6 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 31.7 66.3 19.7 77.6 13.3 84.8 9.6 89.8 17.6 12.9 11.4 15.2 6.6 9.3 3.3 6.8 14.0 55.5 8.8 64.6 7.0 77.1 6.2 83.7 Cigarette use among whites5 Characteristic 1976-1979 Yes No 1980-1984 Yes No 1985-1989 Yes No 1990-1994 Yes No Alcohol use Yes No 33.7 40.5 28.2 46.0 28.6 40.9 27.5 29.7 3.3 22.4 2.7 23.1 3.6 26.8 5.7 37.1 Marijuana use Yes No 22.4 13.7 16.9 12.8 14.4 8.1 11.8 4.4 14.3 49.6 13.8 56.5 17.5 60.0 21.3 62.5 Cocaine use Yes No 2.6 1.1 3.5 2.0 3.4 1.4 1.2 0.2 34.3 62.0 27.3 67.2 28.5 66.6 31.9 66.7 Any illicit drug uset Yes No 23.3 14.8 18.9 15.5 16.1 10.0 13.3 5.9 13.3 48.6 11.7 53.9 15.7 58.3 19.6 61.2 *Refers to use of these substances in the last 30 days. `Entries are percentages of the entire African American high school senior population. $Any illicit drug use includes any use of marijuana, hallucinogens, cocaine, or heroin or any use of other opiates, stimulants, barbiturates, methaqualone, or tranquilizers not under a physician's orders. Methaqua- lone is excluded from the definition of illicit drugs for the 1990-1994 survey data. gEntries ar e p ercentages of the entire white high school senior population. Source: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, public use data tapes, 1976-1994. Patterns of Tobacco Use 37 Surgeon General's Reporf Figure 5. Use of cigarettes and alcohol* among African American and white high school seniors, United States, 1976-1979 and 1990-1994 1976-1979 African Americans 1 1 but no alcohol Whites Neither *In the previous month. Source: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, public use data tapes, 1976-1994; see Table 10 for corresponding data. respondent's personal income; school performance; the importance of religion to the respondent; geographic region of residence; and, except for those who were raised on a farm, the locale in which the respondent grew up (Table 12) (Institute for Social Research, Uni- versity of Michigan, public use data tapes, 1976-1994). Attitudes about smoking. One possible explana- tion is that the attractiveness (or functional zdue) of cigarette smoking has decreased more rapidly among African American high school seniors than among white seniors. For example, African American seniors have, over time, become increasingly more likely than white seniors to acknowledge the health risks of ciga- rette smoking, to claim that smoking is a dirty habit, and to claim that they prefer to date nonsmokers. From 1976 through 1989, African Americans were more likely than whites to disagree with the statement, "I person- ally don't mind being around people who are smok- ing" (USDHHS 1994). African American youths also have been less likely than white youths to believe that cigarette smok- ing helps control weight. In anonymous surveys of 659 students (with an average age of 16 years) from two racially integrated high schools in the area 38 Chapter 2 Tobacco Use Among U.S. RaciallEfhnic Minority Groups Figure 6. Use of cigarettes and illicit drugs" among African American and white high school seniors, United States, 1976-1979 and 1990-1994 ) 1 no illicit drugs No cigarettes but illicit drugs Neither Whites *In the previous month. Source: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, public use data tapes, 1976-1994; see Table 10 for corresponding data. of Memphis, Tennessee, 46 percent of white females, 30 percent of white males, 10 percent of African Ameri- can females, and 14 percent of African American males endorsed the statement, "Smoking cigarettes can help you control your weight/appetite" (Camp et al. 1993). When respondents who smoked at least once a week were asked whether they had smoked to control their weight, 61 percent of the white girls and 16 percent of the white boys said that they had smoked to control their weight, whereas none of the African American smokers reported that they smoked to control their weight. Further research is needed to delineate the role of weight control concerns in patterns of cigarette smoking initiation among adolescents of ethnic groups. One recent study suggests that African American ado- lescent females prefer a significantly heavier ideal body size than white adolescent females (Parnell et al. 1996), a finding consistent with the notion that the potential weight-controlling effects of cigarettes have less func- tional utility among young African American females than among white females. A previous Surgeon General's report indica- ted that parental concern about whether an adoles- cent smoked appeared to decrease the risk of that Patterns of Tobacco Use 39 Surgeon Gerzeml `s Report Table 11. Cumulative percentages of recalled age at which a respondent first tried a cigarette and began smoking daily, among African American, Hispanic, and white men and women aged 30-39, National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse, United States, 1994-1995 All men* Age (years) First tried a cigarette Began smoking daily African African American Hispanic White American Hispanic White <12 7.0 9.2 14.9 1.4 1.4 1.3 <14 17.1 20.6 32.2 3.7 4.6 4.6 <16 34.8 39.0 51.0 10.9 11.2 11.8 48 55.1 54.7 68.7 20.3 19.6 26.4 <19 59.9 62.7 74.0 25.5 26.3 34.3 <20 64.6 65.5 76.1 28.6 28.4 38.5 <25 71.5 72.9 80.9 40.5 37.2 47.4 <30 74.3 76.4 81.7 44.6 42.5 48.8 539 75.1 76.7 82.5 45.1 43.4 49.9 Mean age NA NA NA NA NA NA All women+ Age (years) <12 <14 <16 418 <19 <20 <25 <30 139 Mean age First tried a cigarette Began smoking daily African African American Hispanic White American Hispanic White 4.6 3.5 7.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 13.3 11.3 27.7 2.5 2.0 5.3 25.7 22.5 49.4 5.9 5.6 15.8 43.9 33.9 67.5 15.9 9.5 30.0 52.3 40.7 73.2 21.7 14.3 38.6 55.8 43.0 75.7 24.0 15.5 41.6 66.1 51.4 80.3 33.7 21.8 49.2 68.3 55.8 81.4 37.0 25.7 51.0 69.3 57.4 82.0 38.1 26.7 51.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA *N = 3,536 +N = 5,143 NA = data not available. adolescent becoming a cigarette smoker (USDHHS 1994). In a study conducted in Los Angeles and San Diego in 1986, African American parents placed a higher value than white parents on becoming involved in preventing their children from beginning to smoke (Flay et al. 1988; Koepke et al. 1990). Data from two surveys conducted in eight U.S. communities in 1988 and 1989 indicate that African American adults were more likely than white adults to perceive cigarette smoking as a very serious health problem in their com- munity, to favor eliminating vending machines from places where teenagers gather, and to prohibit smok- ing in their car (Royce et al. 1993). More recent findings from focus groups con- ducted at several U.S. sites suggest that African Ameri- can parents may be more likely than white parents to express clear antismoking messages (McIntosh 1995; Mermelstein et al. 1996). Findings from these focus 40 Chapter 2 Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Men who had ever smoked dailv First tried a cigarette Began smoking daily African African American Hispanic White American Hispanic White 8.9 22.7 45.7 73.7 81.1 87.0 96.1 99.9 100.0 15.9 13.6 29.7 55.4 74.1 83.4 86.9 97.0 99.6 100.0 15.3 15.7 3.0 3.2 2.7 36.7 8.3 10.6 9.2 61.0 24.2 25.7 23.7 83.9 45.0 45.1 52.9 90.5 56.4 60.7 68.8 93.0 63.5 65.4 77.1 98.4 89.7 85.7 95.1 98.9 98.9 97.9 97.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 14.6 18.4 18.6 17.6 Women who had ever smoked daily First tried a cigarette Began smoking daily African African American Hispanic White American Hispanic White 5.9 6.9 8.9 1.6 0.7 1.6 20.1 25.4 37.8 6.7 7.6 10.3 38.6 48.7 66.1 15.5 21.1 30.7 66.8 68.6 85.9 41.8 35.4 58.3 77.2 78.2 92.0 57.0 53.4 75.0 81.4 80.8 94.4 62.9 58.0 80.8 96.0 94.5 99.2 88.4 81.8 95.6 99.6 99.2 99.9 97.2 96.4 99.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 16.6 16.2 14.6 18.9 19.5 17.1 Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, public use data tapes, 1994-1995. groups also suggest that smoking by African Ameri- can adolescents may be a sign of disrespect toward parents (USDHHS 1994). Additionally, African Ameri- can adolescent females appear to perceive that absti- nence from smoking enhances their image, whereas white girls are more likely to perceive that smoking empowers them (perhaps because of themes expressed in cigarette advertising) (Mermelstein et al. 1996). The responses of African American community leaders, including that of former USDHHS Secretary Louis Sullivan, against cigarette marketing campaigns that appear to target African Americans may have influ- enced young people's attitudes and behaviors about smoking (McIntosh 1995). Further research is needed to better under- stand the large decreases in smoking prevalence that occurred among African American youth in the 1970s and 1980s. Research is also needed to better Patterns of Tobacco USC 42 Surgrun General's Report Table 12. Percentage of African American and white high school seniors who reported previous-month and heavy* smoking, by selected variables, Monitoring the Future surveys, United States, 1976-1994 Previous-month smoking (%) Characteristic 1976-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 African African African African Americans Whites Americans Whites Americans Whites Americans Whites Parental education Less than high school High school Some college College Some postgraduate study Personal income+ Low Medium High Very high School performance Far above average Slightly above average Average Below average Importance of religion Very important Important Not/somewhat important Region Northeast North Central South West 34.0 42.0 23.2 36.8 13.9 37.6 11.8 37.6 35.3 39.5 21.2 34.1 14.1 34.8 10.7 34.8 30.9 35.0 20.7 29.2 16.0 31.3 9.4 32.5 29.4 32.4 18.3 26.7 13.3 29.1 9.3 32.4 30.1 31.2 21.9 23.7 14.7 28.3 9.8 31.7 NA NA 16.4 24.5 12.6 24.6 7.5 24.6 NA NA 19.4 30.5 14.9 28.8 9.4 29.7 NA NA 22.8 33.3 14.1 34.5 9.8 35.5 NA NA 23.4 37.8 16.5 39.8 12.4 41.3 25.9 25.8 16.2 21.0 11.4 23.0 8.0 24.6 31.2 35.8 20.2 29.6 12.7 30.7 8.4 32.2 34.4 45.3 22.5 38.5 15.3 38.9 10.6 39.4 40.0 52.4 28.0 44.1 20.5 46.7 17.6 48.3 29.3 25.0 19.1 21.9 11.4 21.9 8.2 22.1 34.1 38.9 23.4 32.4 16.7 32.0 11.5 33.7 40.0 43.0 23.5 35.2 18.3 36.8 12.4 38.5 37.1 40.4 25.7 33.5 18.1 34.9 10.9 34.9 34.8 38.9 20.3 32.8 16.0 34.6 10.1 35.5 32.6 37.7 20.6 31.7 12.7 31.1 10.1 33.6 29.1 25.8 20.2 21.3 17.8 26.0 8.0 26.6 Locale in which respondent grew up Farm 33.6 Country 35.5 Small city 28.5 Medium-sized city 31.5 Suburb of medium- 34.5 sized city Large or very large city 36.2 Suburb of large or 34.1 very large city 37.9 24.9 31.6 26.7 33.0 22.3 31.9 38.3 23.3 30.7 14.6 33.1 12.2 32.2 37.4 20.0 30.1 14.1 31.1 12.1 32.6 37.4 20.1 31.2 14.5 32.3 8.7 34.7 36.9 18.5 32.0 16.5 32.0 6.8 34.7 38.5 22.3 32.0 13.9 33.4 8.5 33.6 32.7 20.0 29.1 14.0 30.2 9.0 33.8 *Heavy cigarette smoking is 10 or more cigarettes smoked per day reported at time of survey. `Personal income is the sum of income from employment, allowance, and other sources. Trend data are available for 1982-1994 only. NA = data not available. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Heavy cigarette smoking (%I 1976-1979 1980-1984 1985-1989 1990-1994 African African African African Americans Whites Americans Whites Americans Whites Americans Whites 9.3 24.0 6.2 21.5 3.0 21.3 2.7 19.1 10.8 21.6 4.6 17.4 2.4 15.7 1.6 15.9 9.1 17.4 4.8 13.1 3.3 12.3 1.4 12.6 7.2 14.9 3.5 10.3 2.4 9.5 1.6 11.6 9.1 14.8 5.3 9.0 4.1 8.3 1.2 9.8 NA NA 3.1 10.1 2.2 8.7 1.1 8.0 NA NA 3.4 12.5 3.0 9.2 1.7 9.1 NA NA 6.1 16.3 2.4 14.2 1.2 13.5 NA NA 6.9 20.7 3.3 19.8 2.3 20.1 7.6 10.6 3.7 8.1 3.0 7.1 1.5 7.1 8.4 17.7 4.1 12.8 2.0 11.2 1.2 11.3 10.2 25.9 5.2 20.2 2.7 17.5 1.5 17.3 11.7 33.5 7.2 26.1 5.1 25.4 4.4 26.0 8.5 10.4 4.0 8.7 2.1 7.3 1.2 7.5 9.4 19.1 5.7 14.5 3.1 12.0 1.9 11.9 12.8 25.0 6.0 18.6 3.9 16.3 2.4 16.5 12.2 23.2 6.3 17.4 4.7 16.6 2.1 14.4 11.1 19.3 5.3 16.0 3.0 13.8 1.9 13.9 9.2 19.5 4.7 14.8 2.1 12.4 1.6 13.8 7.4 12.5 4.2 7.9 3.3 8.4 1.1 8.8 9.9 16.4 5.4 12.3 8.1 12.2 5.1 12.2 10.0 20.2 5.1 14.9 2.9 13.7 1.5 13.1 8.7 19.0 4.5 13.7 2.7 12.2 2.8 12.5 9.4 20.2 4.9 15.4 2.2 13.1 1.3 13.4 9.0 20.6 4.0 15.2 2.8 12.6 1.1 12.7 10.8 22.9 5.4 16.5 2.3 14.9 1.2 14.0 9.3 16.4 3.8 14.0 3.7 11.0 1.2 12.2 Source: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, public use data tapes, 1976-1994. Patterm of Tobacco Use 43 Surgeon Gerzeral's Reyort understand the reasons for the increase in prevalence that occurred in the early 1990s (Figures 2 and 3) (CDC 1996). Other risk behaviors. The Surgeon General's re- port Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young Peo,vle (USDHHS 1994) has concluded that "Tobacco use in adolescence is associated with a range of health- compromising behaviors, including being involved in fights, carrying weapons, engaging in higher-risk sexual behavior, and using alcohol and other drugs" (p. 9). Escobedo and colleagues (1997) have observed these associations for African American adolescent males and females. Using data from the YRBS supple- ment of the 1992 NHIS, the researchers found that af- ter their analysis controlled statistically for age, ethnicity, sex, parental educational level, region of the country, and other risk behaviors, marijuana use, binge drinking, and physical fighting were significantly as- sociated with cigarette smoking among African Ameri- can adolescent males and females. Focus group data suggest that African American youths are more likely than white youths to pair cigarette smoking with mari- juana use as a way to maintain and enhance the drug effects of each (Mermelstein et al. 1996). Smokeless Tobacco Use The prevalence of smokeless tobacco use among African American adolescents has remained fairly constant in recent years. According to the MTF sur- veys, previous-month smokeless tobacco use (based on two-year rolling averages) was reported by 1.8 percent of eighth-grade African American students in 1992 and 2.2 percent in 1996; among tenth-grade students, the prevalence was 2.9 percent in 1992 and 2.5 percent in 1996; and among high school seniors, the prevalence was 2.1 percent in 1987 and 2.7 per- cent in 1996 (Johnston et al. 1996; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data from the 1996 MTF surveys). Similarly, the YRBS data indicate that 2.1 percent of African American high school students were current smokeless tobacco us- ers in 1991 (USDHHS 1994), and 2.2 percent were so in 1995 (CDC 1996). African American adolescent males are substan- tially less likely than white adolescent males to use smokeless tobacco. Among male high school students participating in the 1995 YRBS, for example, 3.5 percent of African Americans and 25.1 percent of whites reported that they had used smokeless tobacco in the previous month (CDC 1996). Among females, 1.1 percent of Afri- can Americans and 2.5 percent of whites reported they had used smokeless tobacco in the previous month. American Indians and Alaska Natives Data assessing long-term trends in tobacco use among American Indians and Alaska Natives have been unavailable, for the most part, because national surveys and databases have only recently begun to identify persons of American Indian or Alaska Native ancestry. Studies using data from regional surveys or data on specific American Indian tribes have, however, provided useful information about tobacco use among members of these groups. Because the geographic location of American Indian and Alaska Native people reflects unique cultural and historical experiences, researchers should consider these differences when interpreting region-specific data about smoking preva- lence. Data from regional studies also may provide information that is useful in developing culturally appropriate tobacco control efforts. National surveys provide limited capability to assess the level of tobacco use and the effectiveness of tobacco control efforts among American Indians and Alaska Natives. The NHIS, for example, did not be- gin identifying American Indian and Alaska Native respondents until 1978. Because American Indians and Alaska Natives make up a small proportion of the U.S. population, data must be aggregated from several years to provide meaningful estimates. Also noteworthy is that the data on tobacco use among American Indians and Alaska Natives include some ceremonial use (e.g., in pipes) in addition to daily addictive behavior (see Chapter 4). Anecdotal infor- mation also suggests that standard definitions and classifications of smoking may not accurately reflect smoking habits among American Indians, some of whom may smoke no more than one or two cigarettes per day (Nathaniel Cobb, personal communication, 1994; Roscoe et al. 1995). Yet American Indians who smoke a few cigarettes every day are classified in the <15-cigarettes-per-day category, which may imply a higher overall consumption than actually exists. Such differences in amounts of daily smoking may have important implications for the design of culturally ap- propriate smoking cessation interventions targeting American Indians. Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking Among American Indian and Alaska Native men and women, rates of smoking have been substantially higher than smoking rates in any other U.S. subgroup. In the 1987 Survey of American Indians and Alaska Natives (SAIAN) of the National Medical Expenditure Survey, 32.8 percent of respondents reported being 44 Chapter 2 current smokers (Lefkowitz and Underwood 1991). This survey-the only nationally representative sample designed to assess the health practices of people of American Indian and Alaska Native ances- try-targets people who live on or near reservations and who are eligible for services provided by the In- dian Health Service (IHS). The NHIS rate of smoking among American Indians and Alaska Natives for 1987 and 1988 (39.2 percent) was greater than the SAIAN estimate, perhaps because of different modes of administration and sampling (tribally enrolled benefi- ciaries in the SAIAN and the general population of American Indians and Alaska Natives in the NHIS). In a more recent survey $50,000 25.5 12.0 9.5 3.9 38.7 11.1 10.3 2.1 32.1 12.6 14.7 2.7 29.9 7.2 10.1 2.0 20.0 22.4 55.0 t 36.9 7.8 10.1 1.9 t f- t t 29.5 10.1 8.3 3.3 Acculturation <25Y~ of lifetime in United States 29.8 9.8 13.0 3.7 NA NA NA NA 2 25% of lifetime in United States 26.2 13.3 22.3 15.9 NA NA NA NA Fluent in English5 % t % t 29.7 7.6 10.7 2.6 Not fluent in English5 31.8 8.8 13.3 3.1 36.6 4.6 10.0 1.1 Immigration before 1981 NA NA NA NA 32.2 5.3 10.5 1.5 Immigration in 1981 or later NA NA NA NA 37.7 6.0 9.8 1.5 *Current cigarette smokers are men who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. Because the number of current smokers who were women was too small for analysis, data for age, education, annual income, and acculturation are provided for men only. `95% confidence interval. SNumbers too small for analysis. %elf-report of ability to speak English well or fluently. NA = data not available. Source: Centers for Disease Control 1992b. higher among men (42.5 percent) than among women (5.7 percent) (Table 27). Southeast Asian men were 1.6 times as likely to smoke as were other men in Wash- ington, whereas Southeast Asian women were one- fourth as likely to smoke as were other women in the state (CDC 1992~). In a recent review of Hawaii's health surveillance data for 1975-1980, Blaisdell (1993) found that the smoking prevalence was higher among Native Hawai- ians than among persons in other racial/ethnic groups; 61.1 percent of pure Native Hawaiian men and 56.3 percent of part Native Hawaiian men were current smokers (Table 27). According to the 1985 BRFSS data, 42 percent of Native Hawaiian men and 34 percent of Native Hawaiian women were current smokers. Data from the 1989 BRFSS in Hawaii indicate that the prevalence was 28.2 percent among Native Hawaiians (Table 271, which was higher than that among Filipi- nos, Japanese, and whites (Blaisdell 1993). 62 Cl7aptcr 2 7Xvcco Use Amor7g U.S. Racial/Ethnic Mirzorify Groups Table 26. Percentage of adult Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who reported being current smokers,* overall and by gender, age, and education, Screener Survey, California, 1990 and 1991 aggregate data+ Characteristic Chinese (% 1 Filipinos (%) Japanese (% 1 Koreans (% 1 All Asians (%`I Total Age (years) 18-24 25-44 45-64 265 Education Less than high school High school Some college College Men Total Age (years) 18-24 25-44 45-64 265 Education Less than high school High school Some college College Women Total Age (years) 18-24 2544 45-64 265 Education Less than high school High school Some college College 11.7 15.9 17.4 23.5 15.9 9.7 12.2 19.7 26.9 14.6 12.4 21.0 20.3 26.1 18.1 11.4 14.4 16.8 16.2 15.3 11.4 6.6 9.9 23.2 8.9 17.6 19.2 23.4 38.1 21.4 16.7 20.3 21.5 21.3 19.4 11.2 15.2 16.2 25.3 15.2 6.6 11.2 12.3 19.1 10.5 19.1 23.0 20.1 35.8 23.5 13.0 19.1 17.2 34.3 19.0 20.9 29.2 24.7 44.1 27.1 19.9 25.8 22.1 22.6 24.0 19.8 10.6 11.1 60.6 14.0 35.4 32.1 18.4 70.6 36.9 26.3 27.6 28.7 35.3 28.3 18.1 21.5 19.2 32.4 20.9 9.8 18.9 16.5 31.0 15.6 4.7 8.9 14.9 13.6 8.9 5.8 4.0 22.9 19.9 9.5 5.5 14.6 16.3 13.9 10.4 2.5 5.1 13.4 9.9 7.4 2.6 3.4 8.3 NA 3.8 1.7 11.6 28.8 20.9 9.4 9.8 12.7 17.5 14.4 12.6 4.8 8.7 13.4 19.4 9.5 3.2 4.9 7.0 5.2 4.9 *Current cigarette smokers are persons aged 18 years and older who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. Only English-speaking persons were interviewed. `The variables needed to compute confidence intervals were not available. NA = data not available. Source: Burns and Pierce 1992. httfW7S (If i-OhCClJ USC 63 Table 27. Summary of selected findings on the percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander adults who smoke, overall and by gender, 1975-1995 Study Population Sources Location/Year Characteristics Total Klatsky and Armstrong 1991 California, 1978-1985 CDC 1992~ Blaisdell 1993 McPhee et al. 1993 McPhee et al. Santa Clara County, 1995 California, 1990 Wewers et al. 1995 Franklin County, Ohio, 1992 CDC 1997a Jenkins et al. 1997b Jenkins et al. Houston, Texas 1997b 1990,1992 Washington State, 1989 Hawaii, 1975-1980 Hawaii, 1975-1980 Hawaii, 1985 Hawaii, 1989 San Francisco and Alameda Counties, California, 1987,1989 Alameda County, California, 1994-1995 San Francisco and Alameda Counties, California, 1990 Adults - Current smokers Chinese Filipino ~EZeIEians NA 16.2 7.3 NA 32.9 11.4 NA 22.7 18.6 NA 30.9 12.6 Persons who smoke 21 pack/day Chinese NA Filipino NA Japanese NA Other Asians NA Southeast Asians, by age (years) 18-29 17.6 30-39 26.3 40-59 26.6 '60 28.9 Total 23.1 Pure Native Hawaiians NA Part Native Hawaiians NA Native Hawaiians NA Native Hawaiians 28.2 Vietnamese adults 1987 NA 1989 NA 4.1 1.3 7.1 1.7 8.2 4.6 6.7 1.6 29.5 3.0 53.7 5.6 54.5 8.3 55.9 7.1 42.5 5.7 61.1 NA 56.3 NA 42 34 NA NA 56 9 45 2 Vietnamese men Cambodians Laotians Vietnamese Korean adults NA 36 20.6* 34.0 (30.3)+ (38.8) 27.8 45.6 (32.9) (48.2) 27.6 43.3 (29.0) (43.3) 21 39 NA 6.6 (21.5) 4.2 (10.8) & 6 Vietnamese men Vietnamese men 1990 1992 NA NA NA 36.1 NA 39.6 NA 40.9 NA Men Women *Figures not in parentheses are from self-report. `Figures in arentheses represent cotinine-adjusted prevalences. Persons whose saliva cotinine levels were > 14 n /m P were considered to be smokers. NA = &ta not available. Data collected from several surveys (conducted in 1987,1989,1990, and 19921 of Vietnamese men and women living in California, Texas, and Ohio showed that the prevalence of cigarette smoking was substan- tially higher among Vietnamese men than among all U.S. men (Jenkins et al. 1990; McPhee et al. 1993; McPhee et al. 1995; Wewers et al. 1995; Jenkins et al. 1997b). Vietnamese women, however, were signifi- cantly less likely to smoke than were Vietnamese men or other U.S. women (Table 27). Several surveys have been conducted in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, California. In the 1987 survey, which included data from 215 randomly sampled Vietnamese, 56 percent of Vietnamese men reported smoking cigarettes, compared with 9 percent of Vietnamese women (Jenkins et al. 1990). Vietnam- ese men had twice the smoking prevalence of men in the United States. On average, however, the number of cigarettes smoked per day was smaller among Viet- namese men (13.4) than among men in the general U.S. population (23.0). In the 198Y survey of 151 Vietnam- ese adults, 45 percent of Vietnamese men and 2 per- cent of Vietnamese women reported being cigarette smokers (Table 27) (McPhee et al. 1993). The precision of the estimates of smoking prevalence from the 1987 and 1989 surveys is limited by small sample sizes. In the 1990 survey of 1,133 Vietnamese men, which served as the baseline measure in an evaluation of a community-based smoking cessation intervention, 36.1 percent were current smokers. These men smoked an average of 11.1 cigarettes per day (Jenkins et al. 1997b). Another survey of Vietnamese men (n = 1,322), which also served as the 1990 baseline measure in an evaluation of a similar smoking cessation intervention, was conducted in Santa Clara County, California. In this population, 37.9 percent were current smokers; the smokers consumed an average of 9.9 cigarettes per day (McPhee et al. 1995). The comparison data for the two evaluation studies conducted by McPhee and colleagues were obtained from surveys of Vietnamese men living in Houston, Texas (McPhee et al. 1995; Jenkins et al. 1997b). In the 1990 survey (n = 1,581), 39.6 percent of the men were current smokers; in the 1992 survey (n = 1,209), 40.9 percent were current smokers. The mean number of cigarettes smoked daily was significantly lower in 1992 (11.9) than in 1990 (13.21. The 1990 and 1992 survey data showed an asso- ciation between cigarette smoking prevalence and acculturation. In multivariate analyses that included statistical control for education, employment, and pov- erty status, the prevalence of cigarette smoking was elevated among persons with limited English-lan- guage proficiency and persons who had more recently immigrated to the United States (McPhee et al. 1995; Jenkins et al. 1997b). Data collected from 1,403 South- east Asian immigrant men and women through a household interview indicate that self-reported ciga- rette smoking prevalence is underreported, especially among women (Wewers et al. 1995). Cigarette smok- ing status among Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnam- ese adults in Franklin County, Ohio, was verified by saliva cotinine assay; a cutoff of 14 ng/mL was used to indicate active smoking. Self-reported smoking prevalence was 40.9 percent for men and 5.6 percent for women. However, results from biochemical verification indicated that 43.7 percent of men and 14.8 percent of women were current smokers. Misclassification as a result of exposure to environmen- tal tobacco smoke is unlikely, given how high the cotinine levels were among self-reported former and never smokers (range 17-331 ng/mL). As other stud- ies have found, current smoking was substantially higher among men than women for all racial/ethnic groups in the study (Table 27) and was higher among respondents with less education. From August 1994 to February 1995, a telephone survey of 676 Korean Americans (aged 18 years and older) was conducted in Alameda County, California (Table 27) (CDC 1997a) , Overall, 39 percent reported that they had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes. Men (70 percent) were more likely than women (13 percent) to have smoked at least 100 life- time cigarettes. Current smoking prevalence was 39 percent for Korean American men in Alameda County-an estimate that was substantially higher than the 19 percent prevalence estimate (from the 1995 California Behavioral Risk Factor Survey) for all men in the state. Conversely, only 6 percent of Korean American women from Alameda County reported current smoking-less than the statewide estimate for women of 14 percent. Cigarette Smoking in Asian Countries Because so many Asian Americans have recently immigrated to the United States, understanding how smoking practices in Asian countries may affect smok- ing practices among Asian Americans here is impor- tant. Currently, however, data are scarce on smoking trends in the countries from which Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have emigrated. The informa- tion that is available suggests that the prevalence of smoking among men in Asia is much higher than among Asian American men. Various studies from Asian countries indicate a very high cigarette smoking prevalence among men and a relatively low prevalence among women (Weng et al. 1987; Li et al. 1988; Hawks 1989; Koong et al. 1990; Gong et al. 1995; Jenkins et al. 1997a; World Health Organization, unpublished data). In many of these countries, the estimated prevalence of smoking among men exceeds 50 percent. However, the prevalence of smoking among women is generally below 20 percent. Some of these studies indicate that the prevalence of smoking among women increases with age (Weng et al. 1987; Koong et al. 1990). In Pacific Island nations, the prevalence of smoking among men is also very high, with estimates generally exceeding 50 percent, similar to those in Asian countries. Women in the Pa- cific Island nations are less likely to smoke than men, but they are more likely to smoke than women in Asian countries, with prevalence estimates generally exceed- ing 20 percent (World Health Organization, unpub- lished data). Studies also show that smoking prevalences are much higher among Chinese male adolescents than among female adolescents. In a 1988 survey of 8,437 junior high school students and 3,823 senior high school students in Beijing, the self-reported prevalence of ever smoking was 34.4 percent among male junior high school students and 3.9 percent among their fe- male counterparts (Zhu et al. 1992). Among senior high school students, the prevalence of ever smoking was 46.0 percent among males and 5.5 percent among fe- males (Wang et al. 1994). Hispanics No data are available on long-term trends in the prevalence of cigarette smoking among Hispanics in the United States. Before 1978, major U.S. government databases, surveys, and publications limited their clas- sifications of race and ethnicity to "white" and "black," and no information was available about persons of Hispanic ancestry. When questions about Hispanic ancestry were added to the NHIS in 1978, direct esti- mates of smoking prevalence among Hispanics were possible for the first time. Because Hispanics made up a small proportion of the U.S. population at the time of the initial surveys, survey data must be aggre- gated from several years to provide meaningful estimates. As with previous sections, data in this sec- tion are from the NHISs, which included Hispanic data aggregated as follows: (11 1978, 1979, and 1980; (2) 1983 and 1985; (3) 1987 and 1988; (4) 1990 and 1991; (5) 1992 and 1993; and (6) 1994 and 1995. Not until the HHANES was administered from 1982 through 1984 was a large enough sample of Hispanics available to assess long-term reconstructed trends in smoking through retrospective analysis of smoking prevalence among successive birth cohorts of Hispanics (Escobedo and Remington 1989; Escobedo et al. 1989a). Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking NHIS data indicate that the prevalence of smok- ing declined among Hispanics from 1978 through 1995 (Table 28) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978- 1995). Birth cohort data from the HHANES also reflect recent declines in the prevalence of smoking among the three subgroups of Hispanics surveyed: Cuban Americans, Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans (Escobedo and Remington 1989). Between 1978 and 1995, the prevalence of smok- ing among Hispanic men and women decreased, al- though smoking prevalence was consistently greater among men than among women, according to the NHIS data (Table 28). Previous analysis of the HHANES birth cohort data showed that after 1970, the prevalence of smoking declined sharply among Mexican American men and less dramatically among Puerto Rican and Cuban American men (Escobedo et al. 1989a). In contrast, the prevalence of smoking changed little or increased among most age groups of Cuban American, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican women. For men participating in the 198221984 HHANES, the smoking prevalence ranged from 41.3 percent (among Puerto Ricans) to 43.6 percent (among Mexican Americans) (Escobedo and Remington 1989), compared with 31.6 percent of Hispanic men in the 1983-1985 NHIS. For women participating in HHANES, the smoking prevalence ranged from 23.1 percent (among Cuban Americans) to 32.6 percent (among Puerto Ricans) (Escobedo and Remington 19891, compared with 20.4 percent of Hispanic women in the 1983-1985 NHIS. Several factors help explain why the HHANES estimates for men are at least 10 percentage points higher than the NHIS estimates for men for a compa- rable period and why the HHANES estimates for women also show a higher prevalence than the NHIS estimates for women. Most importantly, the HHANES was more likely to select an immigrant population than the NHIS because HHANES offered respondents the choice of English or Spanish questionnaires. In addi- tion, the HHANES sampled Cuban Americans from Dade County, Florida; Mexican Americans from Ari- zona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas; and Puerto Ricans from New York, New Jersey, and Con- necticut. On the other hand, the NHIS, administered only in English, is a national sample of the general popu- lation, which includes a wider range of racial/ethnic Table 28. Percentage of adult Hispanics who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 199%1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic % +c1s 9% +c1 % fC1 Yc KI % +c1 Yo fC1 Total 30.1 1.9 25.6 1.6 23.6 1.4 21.5 1.4 20.5 1.6 18.9 0.7 Gender Men Women Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 Educations Less than high school High school Some college College 37.6 3.0 31.6 2.9 29.6 2.3 27.8 2.3 25.9 2.6 22.9 2.4 23.3 2.0 20.4 1.9 18.4 1.5 15.9 1.6 15.5 1.9 15.1 1.7 32.3 2.7 25.8 2.2 23.6 1.9 21.1 1.9 21.0 2.4 19.8 2.2 30.4 2.7 28.4 3.2 26.3 2.3 25.7 2.2 23.4 2.7 19.8 2.5 22.9 2.8 19.9 4.2 18.2 2.8 13.7 2.6 12.4 3.7 14.3 3.5 33.4 3.5 28.0 2.6 26.1 2.3 22.9 2.4 21.6 2.7 20.2 2.4 25.2 3.9 28.1 3.8 27.8 3.0 27.6 2.7 24.2 3.3 21.6 3.4 32.7 6.5 26.4 4.0 20.3 3.2 19.9 3.1 19.5 4.2 21.0 4.1 17.1 6.6 20.4 6.1 13.9 3.0 16.1 3.4 13.1 3.8 8.7 3.1 *For 19781991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $950/c confidence interval. "Includes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. groups and subgroups, including persons who identi- fied themselves as Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican, Mexicano, Mexican American, Chicano, Spanish, or of other Latin American origin. Because Hispanics with higher levels of education are less likely to smoke than other groups of Hispanics (Haynes et al. 19901, the slightly different target populations in the HHANES and in the NH&--which probably differ in educational attainment-may help explain differences in smoking prevalence between the two surveys. Hispanics aged 55 years and older consistently had the lowest rates of cigarette smoking in the NHIS (Table 28), a finding similar to that from the HHANES (Haynes et al. 1990). Rates of cigarette smoking generally have been highest among Hispanics with a high school education or less and lowest among those who have graduated from college (Table 281. This pat- tern also was observed in a smaller survey of Hispanic adults in a semirural city near Albuquerque, New Mexico (Samet et al. 1992). In the 1982-1984 HHANES, having 12 or more years of education was associated with lower rates of cigarette smoking among Cuban American, Mexican American, and Puerto Rican men (Haynes et al. 1990). Among Hispanic women, those with 7-11 years of edu- cation had the highest rates of cigarette smoking. The 1982-1984 HHANES used an eight-item scale to measure level of acculturation in Mexican Americans (Delgado et al. 1990). The variables used to construct the scale were language ability, self-identification, parents' racial/ethnic identification, and generation in the United States. Among Mexican American women, there was a dose-response relationship between the level of acculturation and Table 29. Percentage of adult Hispanic smokers* who reported smoking <15,15-24, or 225 cigarettes per day, overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic % +c1$ % +c1 % fC1 % fC1 % fC1 % fC1 Total <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Gender Men <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Women <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Age (years) 18-34 Cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 35-54 12 years). Among men, smoking prevalence varied for those with ~12 and 12 years of education; smoking prevalence was highest among whites, intermediate among Hispanics of high acculturation, and lowest among Hispanics of low acculturation. This pattern also existed for women, but in all three of the educa- tion categories. Additionally, in a multivariate analy- sis that controlled for age, gender, educational attainment, and Mexican origin, Hispanics with a low acculturation level were significantly less likely to smoke than those with a high acculturation level. Navarro suggested that level of acculturation may be related to the degree of urbanization of the person's or family's residence in the country of origin. For ex- ample, persons living in rural areas of Latin America appear to be less likely to smoke than those living in urban areas (USDHHS 1992). The relationship be- tween cigarette smoking and level of acculturation among Hispanics living in the United States may be confounded by adaptation to industrial and urban societies (Navarro 19961, especially if persons or families from rural areas acculturate more slowly than those from urban areas. Future research into this topic might ideally include information on the person's or family's residence in the country of origin. Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily Between 1978 and 1985, trends in the number of cigarettes smoked per day by Hispanic smokers re- mained stable (Table 29) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 19781995). More recently, however, an increasing pro- portion of Hispanic smokers have been smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day, and a declining proportion of them have been smoking 25 or more cigarettes per day. For example, in 1978-1980, 13.3 percent of His- panic smokers smoked 25 or more cigarettes per day. By 1994-1995, this proportion was 7.7 percent. From 1978 to 1993, Hispanic men were more likely than Hispanic women to smoke 25 or more ciga- rettes per day, although these differences were not sta- tistically significant (Table 29). Consumption patterns in 1994-1995 were similar across genders. Between 1978 and 1995, the prevalence of smoking 25 or more cigarettes per day declined among Hispanics at all levels of education (Table 29), although only the decline among persons with less than a high school education was statistically significant. Patterns of Tobacco Use 69 Quitting Behavior In the NHIS, the prevalence of smoking cessa- tion among Hispanic smokers increased moderately between 1978 and 1995 (Table 30) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978-1995). No notable differences in smoking cessation between Hispanic men and women were observed. The prevalence of cessation was higher among persons in the older age groups and among college graduates (Table 30). Data from a recent multivariate analysis of the 1991 NHIS (CDC 1993) indicate that after the analysis controlled for gender, age, education, and poverty sta- tus, Hispanics were more likely than whites to stop smoking for at least one day during the previous year. Hispanics who had stopped smoking for at least one day were about as likely as whites to have stopped for at least one month. Overall, Hispanic smokers were slightly more likely than whites to have quit smoking for at least one month. Data from the NC1 Supplement of the 1992-1993 CPS indicate that among Hispanics aged 18 years and older who were daily smokers one year before the sur- vey, 59.8 percent reported that they were still smoking daily and that they had not tried quitting for at least one day during the previous year (Table 4). Another 28.5 percent had tried quitting for at least one day, 5.6 percent were occasional smokers (i.e., smoked only on some days), 2.5 percent had not smoked for the past l-90 days, and 3.6 percent had not smoked for the past 91-364 days. This distribution was similar to that among whites, with the exception that slightly more Hispanics had become occasional smokers. Table 30. Percentage of adult Hispanic ever smokers who have quit,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 197%1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ Characteristic 5% +c1* R +c1 % +c1 % +c1 Total 35.0 2.8 Gender Men Women Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 Education_ Less than high school High school Some college College 35.5 3.4 40.5 4.1 43.0 3.3 43.0 3.6 45.8 4.1 48.2 4.3 34.2 4.3 37.6 4.3 42.5 3.4 45.6 3.5 41.6 4.5 43.1 4.5 27.9 4.2 32.6 3.2 33.7 3.6 34.3 3.5 31.4 4.3 32.5 4.9 37.2 3.9 39.2 5.2 44.9 3.7 45.3 3.6 46.4 4.7 49.6 4.9 51.0 5.5 57.2 7.6 60.4 5.0 67.1 5.6 70.3 6.9 68.1 6.4 30.5 3.6 37.7 4.0 43.3 3.6 45.5 4.4 42.8 5.0 47.6 5.1 45.7 7.1 40.0 6.0 41.2 4.6 41.9 4.4 44.2 6.0 44.5 6.2 38.5 9.8 47.8 6.9 55.0 6.3 52.6 6.1 52.8 8.8 49.1 7.6 59.4 14.2 52.2 10.3 59.2 7.2 56.6 7.3 64.0 8.9 71.1 9.1 - - 39.3 2.8 32.8 2.4 44.1 2.6 44.2 3.1 46.2 3.2 199%1993+ 1994-1995+ % +c1 YO fC1 *The prevalence of cessation is the percentage of ever smokers who are former smokers. Former smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that thev were not smoking, and ever smokers include current and former smokers. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. t95% confidence interval. %cludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Tobacco Use Anzmig U.S. Racinl/Et/mic Minorify Group Women of Reproductive Age From 1978 to 1995, a large proportion of Hispanic women of reproductive age (18-44 years) have smoked cigarettes, although this proportion has been declining over time (Table 31) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978-1995). Some evidence suggests that the prevalence of smoking among women of reproductive age v7aries according to the country of origin, with Cuban Ameri- can women (22.6 percent) and Mexican American women (23.2 percent) reporting cigarette smoking in lower proportions than Puerto Rican women (33.5 per- cent) (Pletsch 1991). In a comparison of data from the HHANES and the National Health and Nutrition Ex- amination Survey (NHANES), Guendelman and Abrams (1994) found that Mexican American iTomen of reproductive age were less likely than their lz'hite counterparts to smoke cigarettes at each of the repro- ductive stages (interconception, pregnancy, lactation, and postpartum). The National Survey of Family Growth collected data in 1982 and 1988 on the smoking behavior of females 1544 years of age during their most recent pregnancy. In 1982,17.2 percent of Hispanic women reported smoking during their most recent pregnancy, compared with 13.7 percent in 1988 Wamuk and Masher 1992; Chandra 1995). More recent data from U.S. final natality statistics indicate that smoking rates for Hispanics during pregnancy declined from 8 per- cent in 1989 to 4.3 percent in 1995 (Table 6). Hispanic adolescent mothers were about as likely as older Hispanic mothers to have smoked (USDHHS 1994). Hispanic mothers report generally low rates of tobacco use, ranging from 1.8 to 4.1 percent for Mexi- can, Cuban, Central American, and South American mothers to 8.2 to 10.4 percent for Puerto Rican and "other" Hispanic mothers and those of unknown Hispanic origin (Table 6). Ventura and colleagues (1995) reported that 3 percent of foreign-born or Puerto Table 31. Percentage of Hispanic women of reproductive age who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic 7c KIS 7% KI 5% +c1 % KI Y0 XI % KI Total 25.5 2.7 22.2 2.2 19.8 1.7 16.7 1.8 17.3 2.3 16.4 2.0 Educations Less than high school 29.2 4.3 24.4 4.4 23.5 4.0 17.6 3.7 17.0 4.4 17.0 3.7 High school 21.3 5.6 27.6 5.3 24.1 3.7 21.4 3.6 25.1 5.3 21.4 4.7 Some college 12.9 7.5 21.5 6.7 15.9 4.6 19.5 4.2 17.0 6.1 16.5 5.3 College 17.3 12.0 16.7 8.3 12.7 4.7 15.2 5.0 12.9 5.8 5.1 4.1 *For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include women aged 1844 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include women aged 1844 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95% confidence interval. gIncludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Prrf term of Tuhncco Use 71 Rican-born Hispanic mothers smoked, compared with 9 percent of their United States-born counterparts (Ventura et al. 1995). Data on tobacco use among these mothers may be skewed because California and New York do not report this information, and together these states account for almost half of all Hispanic births (Ventura et al. 1996). The National Pregnancy and Health Survey, con- ducted between October 1992 and August 1993 and sponsored by NIDA, provides nationally representa- tive data on the prevalence of prenatal drug use among Hispanic females of reproductive age (15-44 years). According to National Pregnancy and Health Survey data, 5.8 percent of Hispanic women reported using cigarettes during their pregnancies (NIDA 1994). In the 1985 and 1990 NHISs, questions related to smok- ing were asked of women aged 1844 years who had given birth within the past five years. In 1985, 16.8 percent of Hispanic women smoked during the 12 months before the birth and 10.3 percent smoked after learning of their pregnancy; in 1990, 12.1 percent smoked during the year before birth and 8 percent af- ter learning of their pregnancy (Floyd et al. 1993). Young People Cigarette Smoking Despite the dearth of information on tobacco use among Hispanic youths, several studies have been able to identify trends in smoking initiation and patterns of tobacco use by analyzing data from the HHANES, the MTF surveys of high school seniors (Figure 3), and small local surveys (for example, Smith et al. 1991; Dusenbury et al. 1992; Vega et al. 1993). HHANES data have shown that smoking initia- tion increased rapidly among Cuban Americans, Mexi- can Americans, and Puerto Ricans between ages 11 and 15 years, peaked between ages 15 and 19 years, and declined after the age of 20 years (Escobedo et al. 1990). In all age groups, smoking initiation rates were higher among males than among females. Slight variations in smoking initiation by level of education were found when the HHANES data were combined for all three Hispanic subgroups (although these were three separate surveys, it was necessary to combine three groups to estimate trends for all three groups). Hispanics with less than a high school education had the highest rates of smoking initiation, with an earlier age of onset and a more accelerated rate of smoking initiation during young adolescence, than Hispanics with more years of schooling. Hispan- ics with a high school education had intermediate rates of smoking initiation, whereas those with more than a high school education had slightly lower smoking initiation rates. Because educational attainment is a reliable (Liberatos et al. 19881 although limited (Mont- gomery and Carter-Pokras 19931 indicator of socioeco- nomic status, these data suggest that an association between smoking initiation and socioeconomic status may exist among Hispanics, as it does for the general U.S. population. However, these differences in smok- ing initiation by educational attainment were not as large as those found among whites. In addition, data from the 1994-1995 (combined) NHSDAs indicate that among persons aged 30-39 years, Hispanic men and women were less likely to become daily smokers than whites (Table 11) WSDHHS, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Ser- vices Administration, public use data tapes, 1994- 1995). Among persons in this age group who had ever smoked daily, the initiation patterns among Hispan- ics were more like those of African Americans than those of whites. The average ages for first trying a cigarette and for becoming a daily smoker were about one year higher for Hispanic men than for white men and about two years higher for Hispanic women than for white women (Table 11). Among high school seniors who participated in the MTF in 1985-1989,23.8 percent of Mexican Ameri- can males, 22.0 percent of Puerto Rican and Latin0 males, 18.7 percent of Mexican American females, and 24.7 percent of Puerto Rican and Latina females smoked cigarettes in the previous month (Bachman et al. 1991 b). In addition, 11.6 percent of Mexican Ameri- can males, 13.3 percent of Puerto Rican and Latin0 males, 8.1 percent of Mexican American females, and 13.3 percent of Puerto Rican and Latina females smoked cigarettes daily in the previous month. The prevalence of smoking one-half pack of cigarettes or more per day was somewhat higher among males (5 to 6 percent) than among females (2 to 4 percent). Between 1976 and 1989, the prevalence of daily smoking declined among Mexican American high school seniors of both genders and among Puerto Rican and Latina females, according to the MTF data (Bachman et al. 199lb). Decreases occurred be- tween 1976 and 1984 among Mexican American males and between 1980 and 1989 among Puerto Rican and Latina females. Among Mexican American females, decreases in the prevalence of daily smoking occurred between 1976 and 1984, and no decline was observed in more recent years. In contrast, little change in the prevalence of daily smoking was observed among Puerto Rican and Latin0 males over the entire survey period (Bachman et al. 1991b). Tt~/mco Use Arnmg U.S. Racinl/Efhnic Minority Gro14ps Recent data indicate that rates of smoking are generally lower among Hispanic youths than among white youths. The 1989 TAPS showed that 11.8 per- cent of Hispanics reported some level of cigarette smoking, compared with 17.7 percent of whites and 6.2 percent of African Americans (Moss et al. 1992). However, patterns may differ for migrant and resident youths. In a recent study of 214 migrant Hispanic ado- lescents enrolled in school in San Diego, the prevalence of cigarette smoking within the 30 days preceding the survey increased by school grade, from a low of 10 percent of 9th graders to 14 percent of 10th graders, 21 percent of 11th graders, and 18 percent of 12th graders (Lovato et al. 19941. Also, acculturation may influence smoking behavrior. In a study of sixth and seventh graders in Dade County, Florida, Vega and col- leagues (1993) found that cigarette smoking \vas more frequent among United States-born Cuban American children (23.8 percent) than among foreign-born Cuban Americans (15.1 percent). According to the 1995 YRBS, 34.0 percent of His- panic high school students and 38.3 percent of white high school students smoked on one or more days during the previous month (CDC 1996). Hispanic stu- dents were significantly more likely than African American students (19.2 percent) to have smoked dur- ing the previous month. Regarding more frequent smoking, Hispanic youths (10.0 percent) and African American youths (4.5 percent) were less likely than white youths (19.5 percent) to have smoked on at least 20 days during the previous month. Lowry and colleagues (1996) analyzed cross- sectional data on 6,321 adolescents (aged 12-17 years) from the YRBS supplement to the 1992 NHIS. His- panics were significantly less likely than whites to have smoked in the previous 30 days. This analysis con- trolled statistically for the educational level of the re- sponsible adult, for family income, for the age and gender of the adolescent, and for whether the adoles- cent was in or out of school. In an analysis comparing measured carbon monoxide from expired air with self- reported smoking among a sample of seventh- through tenth-grade New York State public school students, Wills and Cleary (1997) found that the self-report sen- sitivity was slightly lower for Hispanics than for whites but that the magnitude of the effect was small. When self-reported smoking rates were adjusted for carbon monoxide values, ninth- and tenth-grade Hispanic students had significantly lower smoking prevalences than whites. Recent findings from focus groups conducted at several U.S. sites suggest that Hispanic parents may be more likely than white parents to express clear anti- smoking messages and that smoking by Hispanic ado- lescents may be a sign of disrespect toward parents (Mermelstein et al. 1996). According to the 1996 MTF surveys, the preva- lence of previous-month smoking (estimated by com- bining 1995 and 1996 data) among Hispanic high school seniors (25.4 percent) was intermediate to that among African American seniors (14.2 percent) and white se- niors (38.1 percent) (Institute for Social Research, Uni- versity of Michigan, unpublished data from the 1996 MTF surveys). A similar pattern was observed for tenth- grade students: previous-month smoking prevalences were 23.7 percent for Hispanics, 32.9 percent for whites, and 12.2 percent for African Americans. However, among eighth-grade students, the Hispanic-white difference was attenuated: 19.6 percent of Hispanics, 22.7 percent of whites, and 9.6 percent of African Ameri- cans were previous-month smokers. Trends in daily smoking among high school seniors show that rates for Hispanics have been consistently lower than for whites since 1977 and higher than for African Americans since the early 1980s (Figure 3). The MTF surveys suggest that rates of smoking among Hispanics have increased in the 1990s. The prevalence of previous-month smoking (based on two- vear rolling averages) among eighth-grade students was 16.7 percent in 1992 and 19.6 percent in 1996; among tenth-grade students, the prevalence was 18.3 percent in 1992 and 23.7 percent in 1996; and among high school seniors, the prevalence was 21.7 percent in 1990 and 25.4 percent in 1996 (Johnston et al. 1996; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data from the 1996 MTF surveys). Simi- larly, YRBS data indicate that the prevalence of previ- ous-month smoking among Hispanic high school students was 25.3 percent in 1991 (USDHHS 1994) and 34.0 percent in 1995 (CDC 1996). Other Risk Behaviors Using data from the YRBS supplement to the 1992 NHIS, Escobedo and colleagues (1997) observed asso- ciations (USDHHS 1994) between cigarette smoking among Hispanic adolescents and specific behaviors com- promising to health. Marijuana use, binge drinking, and weapon carrying were significantly associated with ciga- rette smoking among Hispanic adolescent males; mari- juana use, binge drinking, multiple sexual partners, and physical fighting were associated with cigarette use among Hispanic adolescent females. The analysis controlled statistically for age, ethnic@, gender, paren- tal educational level, region of the country, and other risk behaviors. Patferfzs of T@t7acco use 73 Smokeless Tobacco Use Recent trends in smokeless tobacco use among Hispanic adolescents have changed little. According to the MTF surveys, previous-month smokeless tobacco use (based on two-year rolling averages) was reported by 4.2 percent of eighth-grade Hispanic students in 1992 and 5.2 percent in 1996; among tenth-grade students, the prevalence was 6.2 per- cent in 1992 and 4.0 percent in 1996; and among high school seniors, the prevalence was 4.4 percent in 1987 and 8.1 percent in 1996 (Johnston et al. 1996; Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, unpublished data from the 1996 MTF surveys). YRBS data indicate that the prevalence of previous-month use among Hispanic high school students was 5.5 per- cent in 1991 (USDHHS 1994) and 4.4 percent in 1995 (CDC 1996). Hispanic adolescent males are much less likely than white adolescent males to use smokeless tobacco. Among male high school students participating in the 1995 YRBS, for example, 5.8 percent of Hispanics and 25.1 percent of whites had used smokeless tobacco during the previous month (CDC 1996). Prevalence among females was 3.1 percent for Hispanics and 2.5 percent for whites. Retrospective Analyses of Smoking Prevalence Among African Americans and Hispanics Because of the lack of long-term national survey data on smoking behavior among racial/ethnic groups, retrospective analysis is the only way to reconstruct smoking prevalences for African Americans before 1965 and for Hispanics before 1978. The retrospective method of constructing smoking prevalences for suc- cessive birth cohorts of men and women in the U.S. population was first reported by Harris (USDHEW 1979; Harris 1983). Harris's methodology later served as the basis for a report in which smoking prevalences were presented for Cuban American, Mexican Ameri- can, and Puerto Rican men and women (Escobedo and Remington 1989). Most recently, the NC1 (1991) published some results of an analysis of birth cohorts of whites and African Americans. Another type of ret- rospective analysis has also been used to estimate long- term trends in cigarette smoking. This approach has been the basis of two published reports, one that pre- sented smoking trends among Hispanics in various age groups (Escobedo et al. 1989a) and another that pre- sented smoking trends among Hispanic young adults (Escobedo et al. 1989b). For this section of the report, both types of retrospective analysis were used to gen- erate information not previously available. Prevalence of Cigarette Smoking Among Successive Birth Cohorts The following detailed analysis of smoking trends over time-according to gender and educational attainment ot defined birth cohorts (based on the year of birth)-uses data from the 1987 NHIS (for African Americans) and the 1982-1984 HHANES (for Hispan- ics). The smoking histories of respondents were con- structed according to the ages they reported cigarette smoking initiation and cessation. Information about these two smoking-related events was then used to classify each respondent as a nonsmoker, current smoker, or former smoker from birth to interview and to calculate the proportion of people smoking each year in each birth cohort. (See Appendix 5 for a discussion of the valida- tion of this methodology.) The resulting birth cohort curves (Figures 7-10) represent smoking prevalences of each cohort for each year from birth to interview (throughout childhood, adolescence, and adulthood) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982- 1984, and 1987 and 1988 combined). By comparing the curves among successive birth cohorts, one can examine smoking trends-over time for those cohorts. African Americans The prevalence of smoking among successive birth cohorts of African American men with at least a high school education has declined gradually, with the peak and age-specific smoking prevalences for the most recent cohort (1958-1967) being lower than the prevalences for previous cohorts' curves (Figure 4). In contrast, little progress has been made in re- ducing the prevalence of cigarette smoking among Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups successive birth cohorts of African American men with less than a high school education (Figure 7). Although smoking prevalences declined slightly for successive cohorts, the peak prevalence for the most recent co- hort continues to be nearly as high as that for previ- ous cohorts. In addition, smoking prevalences during adolescence among African Americans with less than a high school education did not decrease between suc- cessive birth cohorts. Despite initial increases in smoking prevalence among successive birth cohorts of African American women with at least a high school education, prevalences have declined in recent years (Figure 8). The declines in prevalence among African American women with at least a high school education are not as marked as the declines observed among successive birth cohorts of African American men of a similar educational background. Smoking prevalences among African American women with less than a high school education have increased markedly, with the most recent cohort (195881967) showing the highest peak (Figure 8). Hispanics Among six successive birth cohorts of Hispanic men with at least a high school education covering the years 1908-1967, the peak prevalence of smoking in- creased gradually for the first three cohorts but declined beginning with the 1938-1947 cohort (Figure 9). In ad- dition, the rate of increase in smoking prevalence dur- ing adolescence slowed markedly for the most recent cohort compared with rates for previous cohorts. The smoking prevalence pattern among succes- sive birth cohorts of Hispanic men with less than a high school education (Figure 9) is similar to the pat- tern among African American men with a similar edu- cational background. Smoking prevalences have declined slightly since the early 195Os, when the high- est prevalence was observed for the 1918-1927 cohort. The slight decline in smoking prevalence among successive birth cohorts of Hispanic women with at least a high school education is similar to the decline among African American women with a similar edu- cational background (Figure 10). However, the decline Figure 7. Cigarette smoking prevalence among successive birth cohorts of African American men, by education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1980,1987, and 1988* 8o- High school 80- Less than a high 70 - education 70 - school educatio 60- 60- 2 50- 50- E 40- `i $ 40- 2 30- 2 ? 30- 20- 20- IO- 10- 0 I I I I I I I O- 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Year Year Birth cohorts: - 1908-1917 -.-`. 1918-1927 1928-1937 ---- 1938-1947 - 1948-1957 - 1958-1967 *Because these birth cohort curves are the result of calculations of smoking prevalence for each year from birth to interview, they provide information about the smoking prevalence of each cohort during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1980,1987 (Cancer Control Supplement and Epidemiology Supplement), and 1988; Escobedo and Peddicord 1996. Patterm of Tobacco Use 75 Surgeon Geneyal's Report among Hispanic women began more recently, with the 1938-1947 cohort. The peak prevalence for the most recent cohort of Hispanic females with at least a high school education was similar to the peak prevalence for African American women of the same educational level (25 percent). The smoking prevalences among successive birth cohorts of Hispanic women with less than a high school education increased slightly over time and then lev- eled off (Figure 10). In addition, the prevalence of smoking during adolescence increased much more rapidly in the most recent birth cohort than in previ- ous cohorts. However, the overall pattern of smoking prevalence in this subgroup of Hispanic women does not show the dramatic increases observed in succes- sive birth cohorts of African American women with a similar educational background. The peak prevalence for the most recent birth cohort of Hispanic women with less than a high school education (34 percent) was substantially lower than the peak prevalence for the corresponding cohort of African American women (54 percent). The slight changes in smoking prevalences among successive birth cohorts of Hispanic women, regardless of educational background, may be the re- sult of the larger proportion of Mexican American women who compose these subgroups. Although few changes have been observed in the prevalence of smoking among successive birth cohorts of Mexi- can American women, in recent birth cohorts of Cuban American and Puerto Rican women, more women have smoked cigarettes than those in previ- ous cohorts (Escobedo and Remington 1989). Had more Cuban American and Puerto Rican women been included in the HHANES, the pattern may well have been different. The results of these birth cohort analyses show that educational attainment is the most powerful pre- dictor of temporal trends in smoking prevalence. In both racial/ethnic groups, men, and to a lesser extent women, with at least a high school education have made progress in reducing cigarette smoking. How- ever, men with less than a high school education, re- gardless of race/ethnicity, are as likely to smoke now as they were in previous decades. Recent cohorts of African American women with less than a high school education are now substantially more likely to smoke than their counterparts in previous decades. Figure 8. Cigarette smoking prevalence among successive birth cohorts of African American women, by education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1980,1987, and 1988, 80 70 60 High school education 5 50- -z i 40- 30- 20- lo- 0, I I I I I I I 80 70 60 Less than a high school education 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Year Year Birth cohorts: - 1908-1917 -.-.. 1918-1927 1928-1937 ---- 1938-1947 - 1948-1957 - 1958-1967 *Because these birth cohort curves are the result of calculations of smoking prevalence for each year from birth to interview, they provide information about the smoking prevalence of each cohort during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1980,1987 (Cancer Control Supplement and Epidemiology Supplement), and 1988; Escobedo and Peddicord 1996. 76 Clzaptey 2 Tobnczo Use Among U.S. RncinIIEfh,ric Minority Groups Figure 9. Cigarette smoking prevalence among successive birth cohorts of Hispanic men, by education, Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1982-1984, 80 I High school 70 education d'-.- ., 60 h,\ - I $ 50- `; &b , 50- I p: 40- E 40- , , 2 30- 2 30- , I 20- 20- .' 10- .' 10- 0 ,* I I I I 0 I I I 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Year Year Birth cohorts: - 1908-1917 -.-`. 1918-1927 1928-1937 - - - - 1938-1947 - 1948-1957 - 1958-1967 *Because these birth cohort curves are the result of calculations of smoking prevalence for each year from birth to interview, they provide information about the smoking prevalence of each cohort during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1982-1984; Escobedo and Peddicord 1996. Figure 10. Cigarette smoking prevalence among successive birth cohorts of Hispanic women, by education, Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1982-1984* 8o- High school 80- Less than a high 70 - education 70 - school education 60- 60- 5 50- E 40- 2 $ 50- 40- 2 30- 2 8 30- 20- 20- 10- 10- 0 I O- 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Year Year Birth cohorts: - 1908-1917 -`-" 1918-1927 1928-1937 ---- 1938-1947 - 1948-1957 - 1958-1967 *Because these birth cohort curves are the result of calculations of smoking prevalence for each year from birth to interview, they provide information about the smoking prevalence of each cohort during childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1982-1984; Escobedo and Peddicord 1996. Pnfterns of Tobncco Use 77 Long-Term Trends in Cigarette-Smoking Initiation Another type of birth cohort analysis was con- ducted to determine long-term trends in smoking among young adults (2G29 years of age) by gender and educa- tional attainment. Information on smoking history was determined during the years that each person was 2G29 years of age. For each year, the prevalence of smoking was determined by dividing the number of smokers aged 20-29 years by the total number of persons aged 2C-29 years in that year. Unlike the birth cohort analysis de- scribed in the preceding section of this chapter, in this analysis the group for which prevalences are computed changes from year to year because new respondents en- ter the group when they are 20 years old and leave it when they become 30 years old. The information for African Americans was ob- tained from NHIS data collected in 1978, 1979, 1980, 1987, and 1988, whereas the information for Hispan- ics was obtained from HHANES data collected in 1982-l 984. Figure 11. BO- 70- 60- 5O- !+ 2 40- 8 z o 30- 20- lo- African Americans Up until the early 197Os, African American men had substantially higher rates of smoking initiation than African American women (Figure 11). Within each gender group, significant education-related differences were not observed until the 195Os, when rates of smoking initiation among male high school graduates began to decline sharply and rates among females with less than a high school education began to increase. Rates among less educated females surged drama tically between 1970 and 1980. After 1980, rates of smoking have consistently declined among each of these subgroups of African Americans except males with less than a high school education. Hispanics Significant education-related differences in rates of smoking initiation have been evident only among Hispanic males. Around 1940, Hispanic males who graduated from high school began showing Reconstructed prevalence of smoking among African American adults aged 20-29 years, by gender and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1910-1988 Men with less E%% 3~ation Men with a high school education Women with less ZXZ %kation Women with a high school education 0 ; I I I I I I I I 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Year Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978,1979,1980,1987, and 1988 combined. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racinl/Efhic Minority Groups appreciably lower smoking rates than Hispanic males with less than a high school education (Figure 12). These differences increased in the 1960s and even more rapidly in the mid-1970s. No consistent differences in smoking rates by education were observed among Hispanic females. Cigarette Brand Preferences Knowing what influences cigarette brand.prefer- ence among smokers is belie\red to be important be- cause this information can be used to develop counteradvertising strategies. In the late 1970s and the 198Os, the 12 most commonly used brands of ciga- rettes-Marlboro, Winston, Salem, Kool, Pall Mall, Kent, Benson & Hedges, Camel, Merit, Vantage, Virginia Slims, and Newport-were used by at least 76 percent of all current U.S. smokers, according to data from the 1986Adult Use of Tobacco Survey (AUTS) and the 1978- 1980 and 1987 NHISs (Table 32). Brand use varied some- what by race/ethnicity. For example, the top brands preferred by African Americans were Kool, Newport, Salem, and Winston, whereas whites preferred Marlboro, Winston, Salem, and Benson & Hedges. These differences in part reflect the greater use of mentholated cigarettes by African Americans (Cummings et al. 1987; USDHHS 1989). Fifty-five percent of all African American smokers reported us- ing one of three brands that were available only in mentholated form (Newport, Kool, and Salem). Simi- lar patterns and percentages of brand preferences were observed in the 1987 NHIS (Table 32). Hymowitz and colleagues (1995) recently stud- ied menthol cigarette smoking among adults who par- ticipated in a stop-smoking study. Among African Americans who smoked menthol cigarettes (n = 1741, the top reasons given for smoking menthols were as follows: 83 percent said that menthol cigarettes tasted better than nonmenthol cigarettes, 63 percent said that they had always smoked menthol cigarettes, 52 per- cent said that menthol cigarettes were less harsh to the throat than nonmenthol cigarettes, 48 percent found inhalation to be easier with menthol cigarettes, and 33 Figure 12. Reconstructed prevalence of smoking among Hispanic adults aged 20-29 years, by gender and education, Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 1920-1984 Men with less - ZnOOa !Z&ation Men with a high 11-v. school education Women with less %Z," ZEation Women with a - high school education I I I 1950 1960 ld70 1980 1490 Year Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1982-1984. Pafferm of Tobacco Use 79 Table 32. Percentage of self-reported cigarette brand use among adult current cigarette smokers, overall and by race/ethnicity and gender, National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS) 1978-1980 com- bined, Adult Use of Tobacco Survev (AUTS) 1986, and NHIS 1987 Survey Sample Size* Benson & Hedges Camel Kent Kool Marlboro % KIS % XI %X1 % %I % &CI NHIS 1978-1980 African Americans Total Men Women 1,540 6.0 1.6 1.3 0.7 1.6 0.6 28.0 4.0 3.8 1.3 750 4.0 1.7 2.3 1.2 1.1 0.8 31.3 4.7 4.2 1.7 790 8.1 2.4 0.3 0.4 2.2 0.8 24.4 4.5 3.3 1.6 Whites Total Men Women AUTS 1986 African Americans Total Men Women Whites Total Men Women NHIS 1987 African Americans Total Men Women Whites Total Men Women 13,228 4.2 0.6 4.4 0.5 4.8 0.5 6.3 0.6 17.5 1.1 6,675 2.7 0.5 6.9 0.7 4.0 0.6 6.8 0.8 20.3 1.5 6,553 5.8 0.8 1.7 0.4 5.7 0.6 5.8 0.7 14.4 1.2 388 9.2 3.5 0.9 1.2 0.6 0.6 19.9 4.9 6.7 3.1 176 4.6 3.8 1.2 2.0 0.5 0.5 19.6 7.2 10.2 5.5 212 13.8 5.7 0.5 1.2 0.7 0.7 20.3 6.7 3.2 2.9 3,693 4.1 03 4.9 0.9 2.7 2.7 4.2 0.8 28.3 1.8 1,883 2.9 0.9 7.9 1.5 2.3 2.3 4.7 1.2 32.4 2.6 1,810 5.5 1.3 1.5 0.7 3.2 3.2 3.5 1.0 23.7 2.4 428 6.3 2.7 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.3 24.8 5.4 2.7 1.5 174 2.2 1.8 3.4 3.3 2.1 2.8 30.3 8.6 3.1 2.2 254 11.2 5.1 1.7 2.2 3.0 3.7 18.4 5.5 2.3 1.9 1,860 5.8 1.2 3.8 1.1 3.1 0.9 3.7 1.0 31.1 2.6 934 3.8 1.4 5.7 1.6 2.1 1.0 3.6 1.3 38.8 3.5 926 8.1 2.1 1.6 1.7 4.3 1.6 3.7 1.4 22.0 3.1 *Unweighted sample size. `In the NHIS, "other" includes other brands, no particular brand, and roll-your-own cigarettes; in the AUTS, "other" includes other brands. percent said that they could inhale menthol cigarettes always smoked menthol cigarettes, and 21 percent found more deeply. Among a small sample (n = 39) of whites inhalation to be easier with menthol cigarettes. who smoked menthol cigarettes, 74 percent said that Evaluating changes in young smokers' brand menthol cigarettes tasted better than nonmenthol ciga- preferences is especially important because it can rettes, 51 percent said that menthol cigarettes were more help identify factors that influence their choices and soothing to the throat, 39 percent said that they had may suggest ways to discourage them from starting Totmcco Use Ammo U.S. RacidjEthnic Minority Groups Merit Newport Yc kc1 % kc1 Pall Virginia Mall Salem Vantage Slims Winston Other+ % kc1 7r kc1 x kc1 Yc kc1 Yc kc1 7% XI 1.4 0.6 5.2 2.3 6.9 1.5 15.9 2.0 0.9 0.5 2.6 0.9 11.9 2.1 14.5 2.0 1.3 0.9 5.6 2.7 9.6 2.5 12.7 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 13.4 3.3 13.6 2.5 1.4 0.9 4.7 2.8 4.0 1.3 19.4 2.7 1.1 0.8 5.2 1.9 10.3 2.1 15.6 3.2 4.3 0.4 1.2 0.4 5.4 0.4 9.0 0.7 3.5 0.4 2.2 0.3 13.3 0.9 23.9 1.1 4.0 0.6 1.2 0.4 6.4 0.6 7.9 0.8 3.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 15.5 1.2 20.6 1.4 4.7 0.6 1.2 0.4 4.2 0.5 10.3 1.0 3.5 0.5 4.4 0.5 10.8 1.0 27.5 1.4 0.1 0.4 23.4 3.2 2.3 1.8 0.0 0.0 26.2 8.0 2.8 3.0 0.1 0.5 20.5 6.7 1.8 2.2 4.9 0.9 2.4 0.6 3.5 0.7 4.6 1.2 2.7 0.9 3.9 1.1 5.3 1.3 2.1 0.8 2.9 0.9 17.4 3.6 0.4 15.2 6.5 0.5 19.7 6.4 0.4 8.2 1.1 3.6 6.4 1.4 3.5 10.4 1.7 3.8 1.3 1.1 19.6 5.7 2.2 1.2 12.7 3.8 0.5 0.8 1.2 21.9 9.1 2.1 1.6 11.9 5.4 0.0 1.9 2.0 16.9 5.3 2.3 1.7 13.5 4.7 1.0 4.5 1.0 2.8 0.9 2.5 0.8 7.0 1.4 2.6 4.1 1.4 2.5 1.2 3.2 1.2 5.4 1.9 2.8 4.9 1.3 3.2 1.3 1.5 0.8 8.9 2.1 2.4 0.8 3.4 2.2 6.5 3.0 9.4 3.6 1.3 0.3 1.0 8.8 5.1 10.2 5.5 1.0 6.4 4.0 4.2 3.3 8.5 4.6 0.7 3.0 0.7 11.0 1.2 19.2 1.6 1.0 0.4 0.4 13.0 1.9 15.4 2.0 1.1 6.0 1.3 8.8 1.6 23.6 2.4 0.5 1.9 1.2 11.7 4.0 11.2 3.5 0.0 0.5 0.8 12.9 6.3 8.8 4.4 1.2 3.4 2.4 10.3 4.8 14.1 5.0 0.8 3.8 0.9 12.3 1.9 17.0 1.9 1.0 0.1 0.2 13.6 2.7 14.3 2.5 1.1 8.2 2.0 10.7 2.6 20.5 2.8 $9570 confidence interval. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1980 and 1987; Centers for Disease Control, public use data tapes, 1986. to smoke (Hunter et al. 1986; Pierce et al. 1991a). Data (10.9 percent), and Salem (9.7 percent) were preferred from the 1989 TAPS show that among adolescents who by African Americans (Table 33) (CDC 1992d). In the usually bought their own cigarettes (61.9 percent), 1993 TAPS, the most popular brands were still Marlboro was the most popular brand among whites Marlboro among whites (63.5 percent) and Hispanics (71.4 percent) and Hispanics (60.9 percent), and the (45.4 percent) and Newport among African Americans mentholated brands of Newport (61.3 percent), Kool (70.4 percent) (Table 33). Table 33. Percentage of self-reported cigarette brand use among adolescent current cigarette smokers,* by race/ethnicity, Teenage Attitudes and Practices Surveys (TAP%), 1989 and 1993 Benson & Sample Hedges Camel Kool Marlboro Merit Newport Survey Size+ R &CIS % ?CI % XI % ?CI % ?CI TAPS 1989 Race African American White 41 3.3 6.4 3.1 6.2 10.9 9.1 8.7 9.7 807 1.3 1.2 8.4 2.2 0.6 0.5 71.4 3.4 46 3.7 4.9 7.6 8.6 5.8 6.1 60.9 15.0 817 1.3 1.2 8.1 2.1 0.8 0.6 69.1 3.5 41 1.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 11.9 10.9 8.5 8.5 646 0.2 0.4 14.4 3.1 0.5 0.8 63.5 4.3 50 0.0 0.0 10.1 7.7 4.5 8.6 45.4 14.9 647 0.3 0.4 13.6 3.1 0.9 0.8 60.9 4.3 Salem Sample Size+ 7r &CI Vantage Virginia Slims Winston 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 61.3 15.7 5.6 1.6 12.8 9.5 8.0 1.9 $ ? 70.4 14.1 NA NA 8.7 2.4 NA NA 34.0 15.1 NA NA 11.0 2.5 Other Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic TAPS-II 1993 Race African American White Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic Survey % KI 7c kc1 TAPS 1989 Race African American 41 9.7 7.2 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 2.9 5.8 White 807 1.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 NA NA 3.4 1.3 7.6 2.0 Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic 46 2.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 6.5 7.6 817 1.5 0.8 0.1 0.2 NA NA 3.3 1.3 7.3 1.9 TAPS-II 1993 Race African American 41 1.4 2.7 NA NA 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 6.0 White 646 1.0 0.8 NA NA 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.1 9.4 2.8 Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic 50 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 6.0 8.1 0.0 0.0 647 1.1 0.8 NA NA 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 10.4 2.9 *Current smokers are adolescents aged 12-18 years who reported smoking cigarettes on 1 or more of the 30 days preceding the survey. +Unweighted sample size. t95% confidence interval. "Numbers are too small for meaningful analysis; this brand is included in the "other" category. NA = data not available. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1989; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, public use data tapes, 1993. Tdmso USC Avmr~ U.S. Rncial/Ethnic Minority Groups A notable change in brand preferences occurred between 1989 and 1993, however. The percentage of adolescents purchasing Marlboro cigarettes decreased 13 percent, whereas the percentage of those purchas- ing Camel cigarettes increased 64 percent and the percentage of those purchasing Newport cigarettes increased 55 percent (CDC 1994a). The declining pref- erence for Marlboro cigarettes was greatest among Hispanics (CDC 1992d). Increases in brand preference were greatest among white adolescents who preferred Camel cigarettes and among Hispanic adolescents who preferred Newport cigarettes. In 1993, the brands of cigarettes most commonly smoked among a small sample of Vietnamese middle and high school students in Worcester, Massachusetts, were Marlboro (71 .O per- cent) and Camel (9.7 percent) (Wiecha 1996). Data from the 1989 and 1993 TAPSs indicate that brand preference is more concentrated among adoles- cents than among adults. In both surveys, the three most popular brands for each racial/ethnic group were purchased by at least 80 percent of adolescent smok- ers. Both surveys identified very small numbers of smokers among African American adolescents (41 in 1989 and 45 in 1993) and Hispanic adolescents (46 in 1989 and 50 in 1993); thus, brand preference estimates for these groups are imprecise. Effects of Education and Race/Ethnicity on Cigarette-Smoking Behavior In this chapter, smoking prevalence has been shown to vary by racial/ethnic minority group and by educational attainment. Because educational at- tainment varies among racial/ethnic groups and is related to smoking prevalence, the question arises as to whether racial/ethnic differences in smoking can be explained by differences in educational attainment. A previous analysis of the 1985 NHIS data showed that controlling for selected measures of so- cioeconomic status, such as employment status and poverty level, reduced differences in the smoking prevalence between African Americans and whites (Novotny et al. 1988). Although education, together with such variables as income and occupation, is often used to create a composite measure of socioeconomic status, many researchers have used education as a single proxy in- dicator of socioeconomic status because education is often associated with many lifestyle characteristics (Liberatos et al. 1988). In addition, education data are usually more accurate and easier to collect than income and occupation data (Liberatos et al. 1988). Findings in this report indicate that the prevalences of cigarette smoking, smoking cessation, and heavy smoking are all associated with race/ ethnicity and educational attainment. Because racial/ ethnic group and educational attainment are often in- terrelated, multivariable models were used in this analysis to distinguish how each variable influences smoking behavior. Data were derived from the NHISs for 1987,1988,1990, and 1991 (Table 34) (NCHS, pub- lic use data tapes, 1987, 1988, 1990, and 1991). The multivariable logistic regression technique was used to assess the odds ratios of smoking behaviors for African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics compared with whites, before and after ad- justing for the effects of educational attainment.' Four separate logistic regression models were constructed for different measures of smoking behavior: current smoking, ever smoking, heavy smoking (among cur- rent smokers), and smoking cessation (among ever smokers). Four design variables were created to rep- resent the racial/ethnic groups (African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Ameri- cans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics), with whites serving as the reference group. Similarly, two design ' Let p,,, = logistic regression coefficient for the ith ethnicity group h~$rr education was included, and p,, = logistic regression coefficient for the ith ethnicity group after education was included. Then p,,, - p,, measures education's confounding effect on the relationship between smoking and ethnicity. The variance of p,,, - p,, can be approximated as var(p,,,) + var(p,,); and the standard error, SE(P,,, p,,), is the square root of the variance. In terms of the more commonly used measure, odds ratio (OR), the following relationship exists: ORI,,/OR,, = exp(!3,, - p,,). The 95 percent confidence interval for OR,,,/OR,, can then be computed as exp[@,$, - p,,) + 1.96 X SE@,, o,,)]. Education's confounding effect on the relationship between smoking and ethnicity is determined to be statisticalIy significant if the 95 percent confidence interval for OR,,,/OR,, does not include 1.0. Pattcms of Tobacco Use 83 Table 34. Relationship between smoking status and race/ethnicity among adults,* before and after controlling for education,+ National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1987,1988,1990, and 1991 aggregate data Race/ethnicity Not controlling for education ORoS CIS Controlling for education 0% CI Effect of educationt OR,,/ORl CI CurrenP Former1 Heavy** Ever'+ African Americans Hispanics Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders American Indians and Alaska Natives Whites African Americans Hispanics Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders American Indians and Alaska Natives Whites African Americans Hispanics Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders American Indians and Alaska Natives Whites African Americans Hispanics Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders American Indians and Alaska Natilres Whites 1.11 1.06,1.16 0.74 0.70, 0.79 0.51 0.45, 0.58 1.46 1.16, 1.85 1.0 referent 0.65 0.61, 0.70 0.97 0.90, 1.05 0.95 0.80,1.13 0.66 0.47,0.92 1.0 referent 0.19 0.16,0.21 0.25 0.21,0.30 0.17 0.11,0.26 0.74 0.58, 0.95 1.0 referent 0.82 0.79,0.86 0.63 0.60, 0.67 0.39 0.35, 0.43 1.21 1.05, 1.40 1.0 referent 0.96 0.91, 1.00 1.16 1.08, 1.24 0.58 0.54, 0.62 1.29 1.18, 1.42 0.54 0.47, 0.62 0.94 0.78, 1.14 1.20 0.95, 1.51 1.22 0.88, 1.70 1.0 referent 1.0 referent 0.74 0.69, 0.78 1.16 1.07, 1.26 0.88 0.74, 1.05 0.74 0.53, 1.02 1.0 referent 0.89 0.81,0.97 0.84 0.75,0.94 1.08 0.85, 1.38 0.89 0.56, 1.41 1.0 referent 0.18 0.16, 0.20 0.23 0.20,0.28 0.17 0.11,0.27 0.70 0.55,0.90 1.0 referent 1.04 0.87, 1.25 1.08 0.84, 1.38 0.97 0.52,1.83 1.05 0.74,1.49 1.0 referent 0.76 0.72, 0.79 0.55 0.52, 0.58 0.40 0.36, 0.44 1.09 0.93, 1.27 1.0 referent 1.09 1.02, 1.16 1.15 1.06, 1.24 0.97 0.83, 1.13 1.11 0.90, 1.38 1.0 referent *Includes persons aged 25 years and older. `Education was evaluated at three levels: less than high school education, high school education, and at least some college. SO& = odds ratio not controlling for education; OR, = odds ratio controlling for education. Odds ratios were calculated as follows: OR JOR,, = exp@,,, - pi,), where p,,, is the logistic regression coefficient for the ith ethnic group before controlling for education, and pII is the coefficient after controlling for education. Other variables in the logistic models include age, gender, marital status, geographic region, and year of survey. 595% confidence interval. `Current cigarette smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. The association presented is for current smoking compared with former and never smoking. _Former smokers are those who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they were not smoking cigarettes. The association presented is for former smoking compared with current smoking. **Heavy smokers include current smokers who reported at the time of survey that they were smoking 25 or more cigarettes per day. The association presented is for heavy smoking compared with current smoking of l-24 cigarettes per day. "Ever smokers are those who reported at the time of survey that they had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lives, regardless of their current smoking status. The association presented is for ever smoking compared with never smoking. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1987,1988,1990, and 1991; Escobedo et al. 1995. Tobacco Use Amo~~g U.S. Rncid/Ethnic Minority Groups variables were created to represent persons with and without a high school education, with persons having at least some college education serving as the refer- ence group. In addition to including race/ethnicity and education, the logistic regression models included the year of the survey, age, gender, marital status, and geographic region. Education was first omitted from and then en- tered in these models. The difference in estimated co- efficients before and after the inclusion of education was computed for each of the four design lrariables representing the different racial/ethnic groups. The variance of this difference was estimated to be the sum of the variances of the two coefficients. The 95 per- cent confidence interval of the difference was com- puted by using this variance estimate. The difference in coefficients was translated into the ratio of the odds ratios before and after adjusting for education (Table 34) (Escobedo et al. 1995). Current Smoking Before adjustment for education, the data indi- cated that African Americans as well as American Indians and Alaska Natives were more likely than whites to be current smokers (Table 34). Hispanics as well as Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders were substantially less likely than whites to be current smok- ers. After adjustment for the confounding effects of education, the odds ratios for current smoking among African Americans and Hispanics decreased signifi- cantly (Table 34). Thus, when the data were adjusted for educa- tion, current smoking among African Americans did not differ from whites-an indication that the differences in the unadjusted rates were probably attributable to factors related to differences in educa- tional attainment. For Hispanics, current smoking was lower than for whites, and adjustment for the confounding effects of education further accentuated these differences. Smoking Cessation African Americans as well as American Indians and Alaska Natives who had ever smoked were sub- stantially less likely than whites to have quit smoking (Table 34). When education was included in these models, the odds ratio for smoking cessation increased, suggesting that lack of education accounts for some but not all of the low rates of quitting in these two groups. Before adjustment for education, the data showed that Hispanics were as likely as whites to quit smoking. However, after adjustment for education, the data showed that Hispanics were more likely than whites to quit smoking. Thus, the unadjusted smok- ing cessation rate was lower among both African Americans and Hispanics than among whites partially because of confounding by educational attainment. A similar magnitude of change was observed among American Indians and Alaska Natives, but this differ- ence was not statistically significant. Educational at- tainment does not explain why African Americans are less likely than whites to quit smoking. Heavy Smoking Members of all four racial/ethnic groups were less likely than whites to be heavy smokers, before and after the data were adjusted for the effects of educa- tion (Table 34). These differences were greatest between whites and Asian Americans and Pacific Is- landers and were smallest between whites and Ameri- can Indians and Alaska Natives. Because the odds ratio of heavy smoking changed little after adjustment for education, the differences in heavy smoking between racial/ethnic groups appear to be independent of factors associated with educational attainment. Ever Smoking Before the data were adjusted for the effects of education, all racial/ethnic groups except Ameri- can Indians and Alaska Natives were substantially less likely than whites to have ever smoked (Table 34). After adjustment for education, the odds ratios for ever smoking among African Americans and Hispanics de- clined even further, and these declines were statisti- cally significant. This finding suggests that if African Americans and Hispanics had socioeconomic status more comparable with that of whites, they would be even less likely ever to smoke than whites. Differences in current smoking, quitting, and ever smoking between whites and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders also were found. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders were less likely than whites to be current smokers, substantially less likely to be ever smokers, but also slightly less likely to have quit smok- ing. After adjustment for education, the odds ratios associated with these smoking behaviors changed little (Table 34). Thus, the lower smoking prevalences among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders may be related to factors other than education-presumably cultural factors associated with being an Asian Ameri- can or a Pacific Islander in the United States. Pnttrrm of Tobncco Use 85 Occasional Smoking In addition to smoking more cigarettes each day whites who currently smoke are generally more likely than members of other racial/ethnic groups to smoke on a daily basis. According to the 1993,1994, and 1995 combined NHISs, 15.2 percent of whites who smoked were occasional (i.e., nondaily) smokers, compared with 26.0 percent of African Americans, 22.2 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives, 33.1 percent of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and 35.5 per- cent of Hispanics. Only the estimate for American In- dians and Alaska Natives did not differ significantly from that for whites (data not shown) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1993, 1994, 1995). Husten and Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke colleagues (1998) used data from the 1991 NHIS to study persons who had ever smoked 100 lifetime ciga- rettes but who had never smoked on a daily basis. Among the ever smokers, African Americans (12.0 percent), American Indians and Alaska Natives (15.0 percent), Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (12.1 percent), and Hispanics (16.8 percent) were all signifi- cantly more likely than whites (6.2 percent1 never to have smoked daily. In gender-specific multivariate analyses that controlled for income, age, and educa- tion, African Americans, Hispanics, and others (Ameri- can Indians and Alaska Natives combined with Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders) were significantly more likely never to have smoked daily. Data on exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) among members of U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups are extremely limited. In the 1991- 1993 NHIS, nearly one-third of all respondents indi- cated exposure to ETS at home three or more days per week (Table 35) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1991- 1993). African Americans (37.6 percent) and Ameri- can Indians and Alaska Natives (36.9 percent) were more likely than other groups to report such levels of exposure to ETS at home. These findings are consis- tent with smoking prevalence data presented earlier in this chapter. Similar patterns exist among nonsmok- ers, although the occurrence of higher levels of expo- sure (three or more days) is reduced by 40 to 60 per- cent among nonsmokers compared with the total population. Among Asian American, Pacific Islander, American Indian, and Alaska Native nonsmokers, women had substantially more prolonged exposure than men. Using 1988-1991 NHANES III data on persons aged 17 years and older who did not use tobacco, Pirkle and colleagues (1996) found that 36.9 percent of Afri- can Americans, 35.1 percent of Mexican Americans, and 37.4 percent of whites reported that they were exposed to ETS either at home or at work. Wagen- knecht and colleagues (1993) analyzed data collected in 1985 and 1986 from 3,300 persons aged 18-30 years who were recruited in four urban centers (Birming- ham, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Oakland). African Americans were more likely than whites to report home exposure to ETS and to report that they spent time mostly with smokers. Using 1988 NHIS data on the number of smokers in the home, Overpeck and Moss (1991) estimated that 42.4 percent of US. children aged five years and younger were living in a household with a smoker. In 1988, African American children were more likely to be living with a smoker (51.3 percent) than were white children (41.6 percent), and non-Hispanic chil- dren (43.2 percent) were more likely to be doing so than were Hispanic children (35.8 percent). In recent years, small-scale studies have reported on potential exposure to ETS among young people in U.S. racial/ethnic groups. For example, in two rural Alaska villages, an analysis of saliva samples from chil- dren in the Alaska Native Head Start program showed that 44 percent of the children (3-6 years of age) had cotinine concentrations indicative of exposure to ETS (Etzel et al. 19921. Recent research has compared levels of cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) in biological flu- ids and hair of children, young adults, and adults Pattishall et al. 1985; Wagenknecht et al. 1993; Crawford et al. 1994; Knight et al. 1996; Pirkle et al. 1996). Most of these investigations (Pattishall et al. 1985; Crawford et al. 1994; Knight et al. 1996; Pirkle et al. 1996) reported that African Americans who did not use tobacco had higher cotinine levels than whites, even after ETS exposure and other factors were taken into account. Further factors, including possible racial differences in nicotine absorption and metabolism (Pattishall et al. 1985; Benowitz et al. 1995; Clark et al. 1996; Knight et al. 1996) and measurement issues, need to be consid- ered (see Racial/Ethnic Differences in Nicotine Metabo- lites in Chapter 3 for further discussion of this topic). Table 35. Percentage of all adults and nonsmokers who reported levels of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the home, by racejethnicity and gender, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1991-1993 aggregate data Home exposure* African Asian Americans/ American Indians/ Americans Pacific Islanders Alaska Natives Hispanics Whites 7c ,c1+ 7% +CI 7c +CI % +CI % +CI Total(%)* All adults O-2 days Tootal Men Women >3 days Total Men Women Nonsmokers O-2 days Total Men Women >3 days Total Men Women 60.8 1.3 78.5 2.8 60.9 4.5 74.4 1.7 66.9 0.6 67.1 57.3 2.0 76.7 3.7 67.3 6.4 72.4 2.3 66.1 0.7 66.1 63.5 1.5 80.4 3.9 54.9 5.6 76.0 2.1 67.5 0.7 68.0 37.6 0.7 20.5 2.9 36.9 4.4 24.5 1.6 31.9 0.6 31.7 41.1 2.0 21.9 3.7 30.8 6.1 26.3 2.2 32.7 0.7 32.7 34.8 1.5 19.0 3.8 42.7 5.9 22.7 2.1 31.3 0.7 30.8 80.4 1.3 87.6 L.3 3' 83.6 1.5 86.6 1.4 85.7 0.5 85.3 80.1 2.1 92.0 2.8 90.0 4.9 87.2 2.0 85.2 0.7 85.1 80.6 1.5 84.0 3.7 78.8 7.0 86.1 1.9 86.2 0.6 85.4 18.3 1.2 11.7 2.5 13.5 4.3 12.6 1.4 13.5 0.5 13.9 18.6 2.0 7.0 2.7 9.5 4.8 12.0 1.9 14.0 0.7 14.0 15.1 1.5 15.5 3.6 17.8 6.4 13.0 2.0 13.1 0.6 13.8 *Home exposure was the average number of days per week that anyone was inside the home, as reported by respondents answering "yes" to the question, "Does anyone smoke cigarettes, cigars, or pipes anywhere inside this home?" However, these percentages include persons who indicated no exposure. Percentages exclude "don't know" and "not ascertained" responses regarding the number of days; therefore, the sum may not total 100%. `95% confidence interval. tTotal includes persons of other, unknown, or multiple ethnicities and unknown Hispanic origin. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1991-1993. Comparisons Between Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups in Current Tobacco Use Cigarette Smoking The most recent data from the 1994 and 1995 com- bined NHISs show that the age-adjusted prevalence of current cigarette smoking was highest among American Indians and Alaska Natives (36.0 percent), intermediate among African Americans (26.5 percent) and whites (26.4 percent), and lowest among Hispan- ics (18.0 percent) and Asian Americans and Pacific Is- landers (14.2 percent) (Table 36) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1994-1995). Among all racial/ethnic groups except American Indians and Alaska Natives, men had significantly higher rates of cigarette smoking than women. Using data from the NC1 Supplement of the 1992-1993 CPS, Shopland and colleagues (1996) re- ported patterns similar to those seen in the NHIS for African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Is- landers, Hispanics, and whites (data on American In- dians and Alaska Natives were not included in their report). From 1978 through 1995, the age-adjusted prevalence of smoking declined for African Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics- overall and for both men and women (Figures 13-15) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978-1995). A differ- ent picture emerges for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Although a fairly substantial decline in prevalence was observed, particularly among men, for American Indians and Alaska Natives from 1978- 1980 to 1983-1985, prevalence did not change overall or for men from 1983-1985 to 1994-1995 or for women from 1978-1980 to 1994-1995. Table 36. Age-adjusted prevalence of current cigarette smoking" among adults, overall and by race/ ethnicity and gender, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1994 and 1995 aggregate data African American Indians/ Americans Alaska Natives Characteristic % %I+ % XI Asian Americans/ Pacific Islanders % ?CI Hispanics % XI Whites % %I Total 26.5 1.7 36.0 6.0 14.2 2.7 18.0 1.5 26.4 0.7 Men 31.4 2.6 39.3 9.5 23.8 5.1 21.7 2.3 28.1 1.0 Women 22.2 1.8 32.9 8.0 5.4 2.1 14.6 1.8 25.0 0.9 *Current cigarette smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. Data were age-adjusted to the 1990 U.S. census population. `95% confidence interval. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1994-1995. Figure 13. Trends in the age-adjusted prevalence of current cigarette smoking among African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and white adults, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 70 60 African - Americans American Indians and Alaska Natives Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 10- ----- Hispanics Whites 0 I I I I I I II 1 II I I I I I 11 11 11 11 11 11 II 1 1978-80 1983-85 1987-88 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 Year Note: Data were age-adjusted to Ihe 1990 U.S. census population. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Figure 14. Trends in the age-adjusted prevalence of current cigarette smoking among African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and white men, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 70- . 60- `%, o ? ?? o ? ?? 50- *, o ? o ? 5 40- `=: 6 ; 30 c 20- 10 -I African - Americans American - n - I. Indians and Alaska Natives Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders De-D Hispanics - Whites O,,,l,l,l l,l,,/l/ll/llIlIIIII IllI 1978-80 1983-85 1987-88 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 Year Note: Data were age-adjusted to the 1990 U.S. census population. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Figure 15. Trends in the age-adjusted prevalence of current cigarette smoking among African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American and Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and white women, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data African - Americans American 1111. Indians and Alaska Natives Americans and Pacific t Islanders 20 -. ---D Hispanics - Whites 0fl,ll,ll,,,l,l,l,ll,llllllllllll 1978-80 1983-85 1987-88 1990-91 1992-93 1994-95 Year Note: Data were age-adjusted to the 1990 U.S. census population. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Patferns of Tobacco Use 89 Table 37. Cigarette smoking status *+ and number of cigarettes smoked per dayt among adults, overall and by race/ethnicity and gender, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1987, 1988,1990, and 1991 aggregate data Characteristic African American Indians/ Asian Americans/ Americans Alaska Natives Pacific Islanders Total Never smokers Former smokers Current smokers Cigarettes smoked per day <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 54.4 41.1 70.6 15.4 21.9 13.4 30.1 37.1 16.0 59.6 39.7 58.1 32.4 40.4 35.3 8.0 19.9 6.5 Men Never smokers Former smokers Current smokers Cigarettes smoked per day <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 44.6 36.1 56.8 19.6 26.0 19.6 35.9 38.0 23.6 54.1 27.5 56.1 36.3 49.7 37.8 9.6 22.8 6.1 Women Never smokers 62.6 46.0 85.3 Former smokers 12.0 17.9 6.9 Current smokers 25.4 36.2 7.8 Cigarettes smoked per day <15 cigarettes 65.8 52.3 64.6 15-24 cigarettes 27.9 30.9 27.6 225 cigarettes 6.3 16.8 7.9 Note: For racial/ethnic-specific data on cigars, pipes, chelving tobacco, snuff, or any form of tobacco, see Table 38. *Never smokers are those who reported that they had never smoked at least 100 cigarettes; former smokers are those who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives but ~.ho reported at the time of survey that they did not currently smoke; and current smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. `95% confidence intervals for cigarette smoking status do not exceed 10.6% for whites, +1.4% for African Americans, *3.1% for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, f6.6'k for American Indians and Alaska Natives, i-0.5% for all non-Hispanics, ?1.7% for all Hispanics, *2.3% for Mexican Americans, k5.2R for Puerto Ricans, +6.5% for Cuban Americans, ?3.3% for other Hispanics, and +0.5% for the total population. Analyses of aggregated NHIS data from the 1987, Pacific Islanders (16.0 percent). The prevalence of 1988,1990, and 1991 surveys indicate differing patterns never smoking cigarettes was highest among Asian in the prevalence of current smoking, never smoking, Americans and Pacific Islanders (70.6 percent) and former smoking, and cigarette consumption among lowest among American Indians and Alaska Natives members of the four racial/ethnic groups (Table 37) (41 .l percent). Rates of former cigarette smoking were (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1987, 1988, 1990, and highest among whites (26.0 percent) and lowest among 1991). The prevalence of current cigarette smoking was Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (13.4 percent). highest among American Indians and Alaska Natives Overall, men were more likely than women to be cur- (37.1 percent) and lowest among Asian Americans and rent or former smokers, whereas women were more Hispanics All Hispanics Cuban Americans Puerto Ricans Mexican Americans Other Hispanics Whites Total5 60.3 61.9 58.7 61.0 59.3 46.7 49.2 17.2 17.5 16.3 16.8 18.4 26.0 23.8 22.5 20.7 25.0 22.2 22.4 27.3 27.0 61.4 43.3 52.2 68.4 57.9 26.8 33.4 30.0 40.1 36.7 25.7 44.8 32.0 42.3 8.6 16.6 11.1 5.9 10.1 28.3 24.3 49.8 49.6 52.4 38.9 50.6 38.9 40.7 21.6 24.1 19.4 22.1 20.8 32.1 29.6 28.6 26.3 28.3 29.0 28.6 29.1 29.6 58.8 38.5 52.1 65.9 52.4 21.7 29.1 30.9 39.9 31.7 27.2 35.7 42.9 41.2 10.3 21.6 16.2 6.9 11.9 35.4 29.7 69.5 71.1 63.3 72.7 66.5 53.9 56.8 13.4 12.5 14.0 11.7 16.3 20.4 18.6 17.0 16.4 22.7 15.5 17.2 21.7 24.6 65.2 49.2 52.3 72.8 65.9 32.1 38.1 28.8 40.4 41.1 23.2 26.6 46.9 43.5 6.0 10.5 6.6 4.0 17.5 21.1 18.4 t95% confidence intervals for the number of cigarettes smoked dailv do not exceed +0.8% for whites, +2.2% for African Americans, f9.7% for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, *10.4% for American Indians and Alaska Natives, +0.9%' for all non-Hispanics, f3.4% for all Hispanics, *4.7% for Mexican Americans, f8.6% for Puerto -Ricans, f12.4% for Cuban Americans, f6.8% for other Hispanics, and +O.S% for the total population. "Includes persons of other, unknown, or multiple ethnicities and of unknown Hispanic origin. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1994~. likely than men never to have smoked. Among Afri- can Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Island- ers, and all Hispanics except Cuban Americans, the majority of current smokers reported smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day, whereas whites, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and Cuban Americans were more likely than others to report smoking 25 or more cigarettes per day. For all groups except Puerto Ricans, women were much more likely than men to report smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day. Pipe and Cigar Use The prevalence of current pipe or cigar use has been higher among American Indians and Alaska Na- tives than among other racial/ethnic groups, accord- ing to aggregated data from the 1987 and 1991 NHISs (Table 38) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1987 and 1991). Current pipe or cigar use occurred primarily among men; use was negligible among women of all racial/ethnic groups. The prevalence of cigar or pipe Patftws of Tobacco Use 91 Table 38. Percentage of adults tobacco, overall and who reported using cigars, pipes, chewing tobacco, snuff, or any form of by race/ethnicity and gender, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1987 and 1991 aggregate data* Characteristic African American Indians/ Americans Alaska Natives Asian Americans/ Pacific Islanders Cigar smoking+ Total Men Women Pipe smoking* Total Men Women Cigar or pipe smoking+t Total Men Women Any tobacco smoking' Total Men Women Use of chewing tobacco1 Total Men Women Use of snuff** Total Men Women Use of chewing tobacco or snuffl*' Total Men Women Use of any tobacco product++ Total Men Women 1.8 2.7 1.1 3.9 5.3 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.1 3.5 2.4 6.9 0.0 0.0 2.5 4.9 1.7 5.6 9.8 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 32.6 36.4 16.0 40.2 37.3 24.0 26.5 35.6 7.8 2.0 3.1 0.2 2.7 5.3 0.4 1.5 0.8 0.0 1.4 1.8 0.5 0.9 3.2 0.9 1.9 0.4 0.0 3.0 4.5 0.6 3.1 7.8 1.2 2.9 1.2 0.0 35.2 40.2 16.8 42.4 43.9 25.6 29.3 36.6 7.9 1.2 5:; Note: For racial/ethnic-specific data on cigarette smoking, see Table 37. *95% confidence intervals do not exceed +0.7% for whites, *2.1% for African Americans, f4.0% for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, f9.6% for American Indians and Alaska Natives, f0.7% for all non- Hispanics, f2.27~ for all Hispanics, &2.9% for Mexican Americans, +_7.0% for Puerto Ricans, f8.0% for Cuban Americans, +3.9% for other Hispanics, and +0.7% for the total population. `Includes persons who reported they had smoked at least 50 cigars in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked a cigar. tlncludes persons who reported they had smoked a pipe at least 50 times in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked a pipe. gIndicates a value of >O and ~0.05. smoking among men was highest among American Indians and Alaska Natives (9.8 percent) and lowest among Puerto Ricans (1.5 percent). Unfortunately, the 1987 and 1991 NHISs did not distinguish between ceremonial and addictive daily pipe smoking, and this factor may partially account for the high prevalence of pipe smoking among American Indian and Alaska Native men. Tobrrcco USC Alnong U.S. Racinl/Ethnic Minority Groups Hispanics All Cuban Hispanics Americans Puerto Ricans Mexican Americans Other Hispanics Whites Total 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.1 1.3 1.5 3.8 4.8 4.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.0 2.6 0.2 1.5 1.7 2.9 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 o.os ::; 2.1 5.1 0.8 1.5 2.7 1.2 4.3 2.1 3.3 6.7 3.0 6.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 22.7 22.5 22.1 26.8 21.7 29.6 29.1 29.3 30.8 29.4 31.9 27.2 33.2 33.4 16.8 16.9 14.8 23.1 16.9 26.3 25.2 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 0.3 1.1 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.8 1.9 1.7 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.6 1.6 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 Z:i 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.3 1.1 3.4 3.1 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.6 2.3 6.8 5.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 23.4 22.7 22.9 27.4 22.4 32.2 31.5 30.4 31.2 30.7 32.8 28.4 38.0 37.6 17.0 17.0 15.1 23.3 17.1 26.8 26.0 -\Includes current users of cigarettes, cigars, or pipes. _Includes persons who reported thev had used chewing tobacco at least 20 times in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently chewed tobacco. **Includes persons who reported they had used snuff at least 20 times in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently used snuff. `+Includes users of cigarettes, cigars, pipes, chewing tobacco, or snuff. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1994~. A 1996 survey of U.S. students aged 14-19 years found that white (28.9 percent) and Hispanic (26.2 per- cent) students were slightly more likely than African American students (19.3 percent) to report having smoked at least one cigar during the previous year. In each racial/ethnic group, males were significantly more likely than females to have smoked at least one cigar during the previous year. Use among females ranged from 13.4 percent in African Americans to 20.0 percent among Hispanics. The prevalence of more Pattcrm of Tobncco USC 93 frequent cigar use did not differ by racejethnicity; 3.6 percent of African Americans, 2.5 percent of Hispanics, and 2.3 percent of whites reported that they had smoked at least 50 cigars during the previous year (CDC 1997b). Use of Smokeless Tobacco American Indians and Alaska Natives were the most likely (4.5 percent) to use chewing tobacco or snuff, according to aggregated data from the 1987 and 1991 NHISs, whereas Asian Americans and Pacific Island- ers (0.6 percent) as well as Hispanics (0.8 percent) were the least likely to use smokeless tobacco (Table 38). Conclusions Among all racial/ethnic groups except African Ameri- cans, men were much more likely than women to use chewing tobacco or snuff. Among African American women, the use of smokeless tobacco has been high- est among those aged 65 years and older (CDC 1994~). These findings are consistent with those in published studies (Bauman et al. 1989; Novotny et al. 1989; Rouse 1989), although they differ somewhat from the 1985 CPS estimates for males aged 16 years and older; these estimates showed rates of reported snuff use among African Americans (0.7 percent) and whites (2.2 per- cent) that were significantly lower than the NHIS- based rates reported here (Marcus et al. 1989). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In 1978-1995, the prevalence of cigarette smoking declined among African American, Asian Ameri- can and Pacific Islander, and Hispanic adults. However, among American Indians and Alaska Natives, current smoking prevalence did not change for men from 1983 to 1995 or for women from 1978 to 1995. Tobacco use varies within and among racial/ ethnic groups; among adults, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the highest prevalence of tobacco use; African American and Southeast Asian men also have a high prevalence of smok- ing. Asian American and Hispanic women have the lowest prevalence. In all racial/ethnic groups discussed in this report except American Indians and Alaska Natives, men have a higher prevalence of cigarette smoking than women. In all racial/ethnic groups except African Ameri- cans, men are more likely than women to use smokeless tobacco. Cigarette smoking prevalence increased in the 1990s among African American and Hispanic ado- lescents after several years of substantial decline among adolescents of all four racial /ethnic minor- ity groups. This increase is particularly striking among African American youths, who had the greatest decline of the four groups during the 1970s and 1980s. Since 1978, the prevalence of cigarette smoking has remained strikingly high among American Indian 7. 8. 9. 10. and Alaska Native women of reproductive age and has not declined as it has among African Ameri- can, Asian American and Pacific Islander, and Hispanic women of reproductive age. Declines in smoking prevalence were greater among African American, Hispanic, and white men who were high school graduates than they were among those with less formal education. Among women in these three groups, education- related declines in cigarette smoking were less pronounced. Educational attainment accounts for only some of the differences in smoking behaviors (current smoking, heavy smoking, ever smoking, and smoking cessation) between whites and the racial/ ethnic minority groups discussed in this report. Other biological, social, and cultural factors are likely to further account for these differences. Compared with whites who smoke, smokers in each of the four racial/ethnic minority groups smoke fewer cigarettes each day. Among smok- ers, African Americans, Asian Americans and Pa- cific Islanders, and Hispanics are more likely than whites to smoke occasionally (less than daily). The data in general suggest that acculturation in- fluences smoking patterns in that individuals tend to adopt the smoking behavior of the current broader community; however, the exact effects of acculturation on smoking behavior are difficult to quantify because of limitations on most available measures of this cultural learning process. Appendix 1. Sources of Data Most of the data reported in this chapter were collected through a number of large-scale sur\reys conducted by the federal go\`ernment or private researchers. When data from one period were insuffi- cient (e.g., because of small sample size) for estimat- ing the prevalence of a risk factor or a behaI,ior, thev were combined with similar data for several periods, provided the prevalence under consideration had not changed rapidly over the periods being aggregated. This process, used in some of the NHIS and BRFSS analyses, increased the reliabilitlr and stabilitv of preva- lence estimates (CDC lY92e). The data reported in this chapter are limited in several ways. For example, because some racial/ ethnic groups were underrepresented in the data sources, the small number of responses ma\' not be representativre of the group as a whole. Moreo\.er, most surveys haire been conducted in English only, thus limiting the validitv of the responses of indi\pidu- als with limited proficiency in English, particularly among Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and His- panics. In addition, some surveys ha\,e used tele- phone surveys (excluding persons who lack telephone service) or school surveys (excluding youths who dropped out of school or who were frequently absent from class); these survreys have thus excluded a num- ber of respondents who may be at increased risk for cigarette smoking. Despite these limitations, the pat- terns described in this chapter are the first and largest effort to present a comprehensive perspective on ciga- rette use among members of racial/ethnic minority groups in the United States. National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Since 1965, the CDC's NCHS has collected data on tobacco use through the NHIS, which uses a prob- ability sample of noninstitutionalized adult civilians in the United States (NCHS 1975,1985a, 1989). Some NHISs have excluded adults 18 and 19 years of age; however, this report uses data from surveys that have included respondents who were aged 18 years and older (i.e., 1978,1979,1980,1983,1985,1987,1988,1990, 1991,1992,1993,1994, and 19951. Most interviews were conducted in the home; when respondents could not be interviewed in person, telephone interviews were conducted. The overall NHIS response rate for surveys on smoking has remained at least 85 percent (NCHS 1985a). Overall, sample sizes have ranged from 10,342 in 1980 to 86,332 in 1966. In this report, data have been adjusted for nonresponse and have been weighted to provide national estimates. Confidence intervals have been calculated by using standard er- rors generated by the Professional Software for Survey Data Analysis (SUDAAN) (Shah et al. 1991). Responses from various administrations of the NHIS have been aggregated to produce more stable results for Hispanics, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and American Indians and Alaska Natives. Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES) The NCHS conducted the HHANES from 1982 through 1984 to assess the health and nutritional status and needs of Cuban Americans, MexicanAmeri- cans, and mainland Puerto Ricans. No other equiva- lent source of recent data is available for Hispanics. This survey sampled Mexican Americans from Ari- zona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas; Cuban Americans from Dade County, Florida (Miami); and Puerto Ricans from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Demographic and cigarette smoking in- formation were collected from Hispanics aged 20-74 vears. All interviews were conducted in the home or i in a mobile examination center. NCHS estimates that the HHANES data represent approximately 76 percent of the 1980 Hispanic-origin population. All data in this report have been adjusted and weighted for the complex sample design, nonresponse bias, potential noncoverage bias, and regional nature of the sample (NCHS 1985b). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) The CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion coordinates the state surveillance of behavioral risk factors through the BRFSS, initiated in 1981 (Gentry et al. 1985; Remington et al. 1988). Each state that participates in the BRFSS provides estimates of numerous risk behaviors for the state's population of persons aged 18 years and older. Paftcnls of rolJncc0 Use 95 States collect data through random digit-dialed telephone interviews. BRFSS sample sizes have ranged from 476 in Indiana in 1984 to 3,988 in California in 1992. Since 1991, at least 1,178 persons have been sampled in each state. In this report, the data have been weighted to reflect the age, race/ethnicity, and gender distribution of each participating state. Ninety- five percent confidence intervals have been calculated by using the Standard Errors Program for Computing of Standardized Rates from Sample Survey Data (SESUDAAN) (Shah 1981). Adult Use of Tobacco Survey (AUTS) Since 1964, the AUTS has been conducted peri- odically to determine rates of tobacco use as well as descriptive information on smoking patterns among representative samples of the U.S. population. Infor- mation gathered has included a history of individual use of any tobacco product as well as attitudes and beliefs about smoking-related issues. The AUTS was conducted in 1964, 1966, 1970, and 1975 by the USDHEW's National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, and the most recent survey was conducted in 1986 by the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health. In the 1986 AUTS, a computer-assisted telephone inter- view protocol (random-digit dialing) was used to sur- vey 13,031 noninstitutionalized civilian U.S. adults (217 years of age). Population estimates were obtained by weighting the sample according to smoking status, age, race/ethnicity, gender, education, and geographic region (USDHHS 1990b). Monitoring the Future (MTF) Surveys Each spring since 1975, the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, with grants from NIDA, has surveyed nationally representative samples of high school seniors as part of the MTE Sample sizes have ranged from 15,850 to 18,448. The data in this report have been weighted to provide na- tional estimates. Analyses were conducted on data collected for 1976-1994. Data from subsequent years were obtained from published reports (e.g., Johnston et al. 1996) and from the University of Michigan's In- stitute for Social Research. Since 1991, data have been collected for eighth- and tenth-grade students. Some data from these surveys are cited in this report (Johnston et al. 1993b, 1995a, 19961. Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) The CDC developed the Youth Risk Behavior Sur- veillance System to measure six categories of priority health-risk behaviors, including tobacco use, among adolescents. Data were collected through national, state, and local school-based surveys of high school stu- dents, conducted during the spring of odd-numbered years, and a national household-based survey of youths aged 12-21 years, conducted during 1992 (Kolbe 1990; Kolbe et al. 1993; CDC 1996). Data from the 1991 and 1995 national school-based surveys and the 1992 na- tional household survey are cited in this report (USDHHS 1994; CDC 1996; Lowry et al. 1996). The national school-based YRBSs each used a three-stage cluster sample design to draw a nationally representative sample of ninth- to twelfth-grade stu- dents in public and private schools in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Schools having a substantial proportion of African American and Hispanic students were oversampled. The questionnaire was adminis- tered in the classroom by trained data collectors. The data were weighted to provide national estimates. The 1992 YRBS was a follow-back survey to the 1992 NHIS. The sample of young people aged 12-21 years was drawn from families who were interviewed for the 1992 NHIS. Participants responded in person. Respondents listened through a headset to an audio- cassette containing previously recorded questions. Respondents recorded their responses on answer sheets, which were returned to the interviewers in sealed envelopes. The data were weighted to provide national estimates. Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey (TAPS) In 1989 and 1993, the U.S. Public Health Service conducted the TAPS to collect data on knowledge, at- titudes, and practices regarding tobacco use from a national household sample of adolescents (aged 12-18 years) through telephone interviews. The 1993 TAPS included a longitudinal component (TAPS-II) in which 7,960 (87.1 percent) of the 9,135 respondents to the 1989 TAPS were reinterviewed; these respondents were 15- 22 years of age during TAPS-II. TAPS-II also included 4,992 persons from a new probability sample. In this report, data on 9,135 TAPS respondents and 7,311 TAPS- II respondents have been analyzed. Data have been weighted to provide national estimates, and confidence intervals have been calculated by using the standard errors generated by the SUDAAN (Shah et al. 1991). Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racinl/Efhnic Mi~orify Grcmps Appendix 2. Measures of Tobacco Use Several measures of tobacco use among members of racial/ethnic groups can be derived from state and national surveys and other data sources. The most common measures include cigarette smoking and ces- sation; the number of cigarettes smoked daily; and the use of cigars, pipes, and smokeless tobacco. Cigarette Smoking and Cessation The NHIS gathers information on a range of ciga- rette smoking behaviors, using some of the following terms and measurements: For 197881991, ci~~~zt srr~okcrs are defined as those who have smoked 100 or more cigarettes in their lifetime and who report at the time of survey that they currently smoke. For 1992-1995, current smokers are defined as those who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who report at the time of survey that they currently smoke ev ery day or on some days. Former smokers are those who have smoked 100 or more cigarettes in their lifetime and who do not currently smoke. Netler smokers are those who have smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime. Ezler smokers consist of current smokers and former smokers. The prevalence ofcessafi~ (or quit ratio) is defined as the percentage of ever smokers who are former smokers (Fiore et al. 1989; USDHHS 1989,199Oa). NHIS data on age at initiation of regular smok- ing and on duration of abstinence for former smokers have been used to reconstruct the prevalence of ciga- rette smoking for the decades in this century before systematic surveillance of cigarette smoking was conducted (NC1 1991). Information such as the respondent's date of birth, age at initiation of smok- ing, and age at cessation for former smokers can be used to assess the smoking status of a respondent for any given year. Similar analyses have been reported in previous Surgeon General's reports (USDHHS 1980, 1985) and in the literature (Harris 1983; Escobedo and Remington 1989; Pierce et al. 1991b). The BRFSS has routinely reported estimates of "regular" cigarette smoking. Current regular smok- ers are defined as those (1) who report that they have smoked 2100 cigarettes and that they currently smoke and (2) who do not respond that they are occasional smokers when asked to report the average number of cigarettes they smoke daily. The use of a measure of current regular smoking generally results in median prevalence estimates that are about 0.7 to 1.0 percent- age points lower than those estimates that include current occasional smokers (CDC 1994~). The BRFSS defines and calculates the prevalence of smoking ces- sation in the same manner as is done in the NHIS. In the MTF surveys, current cigarette use patterns are defined as any use of cigarettes within the 30 days preceding the survey. This same definition was used for current alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and any other illicit drug use. Number of Cigarettes Smoked Daily Cigarette consumption traditionally has been reported in three categories: (1) smoking fewer than 15 cigarettes per day, (2) smoking between 15 and 24 cigarettes per day, and (3) smoking 25 or more ciga- rettes per day. In the NHISs and the BRFSS surveys, respondents were asked to report the actual number of cigarettes smoked per day. In the 1978-1991 NHISs, cigarette consumption was defined as the average number of cigarettes that current smokers reported smoking each day. Starting in 1992, however, current smokers who reported that they smoked only on some days were asked to report the number of days out of the past 30 days that they smoked any cigarettes and the average number of ciga- rettes they smoked on the days that they smoked. The MTF survey asks respondents how fre- quently they have smoked during the previous 30 days. Possible responses are "not at all," "less than one cigarette per day, " "one to five cigarettes per day," "about one-half pack per day," "about one pack per day," " about one and one-half packs per day," and "two packs or more per day." Use of Cigars, Pipes, and Smokeless Tobacco The 1987 and 1991 NHISs defined current cigar smokers as those who had smoked 50 or more cigars in their lifetime and who were current cigar smokers, and they defined current pipe smokers as those who had smoked 50 or more pipes full of tobacco and who were current pipe smokers. Current snuff users were defined as those who had used snuff 20 or more times and were currently snuff users. The same logic was used to classify chewing tobacco users. In the BRFSS surveys, smokeless tobacco users were defined as those who said that they had ever used smokeless tobacco (such as chewing tobacco or snuff) and who were current users of any smokeless tobacco products. Appendix 3. Patterns of Cigarette Use Among Whites Table 39. Percentage of white adults who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 1965 1966 1970 1974 Characteristic 7c kC1t % XI % IfrcI % %I Total 42.1 0.6 42.4 0.5 37.0 0.7 36.4 0.8 Gender Men Women 51.1 0.8 51.8 0.8 43.2 0.8 41.9 1.0 34.0 0.7 33.9 0.7 31.6 1.0 31.7 1.1 Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 48.6 1.0 48.3 0.9 48.5 0.9 48.7 0.9 26.3 0.9 27.4 0.9 41.3 42.8 25.1 0.9 40.7 1.6 41.9 1.1 24.9 1.1 Education5 Less than high school High school Some college College 4?% NA 0.7 NA NA 40.4-' 1.3 41.3 0.9 37.1 1.0 36.9 1.3 44.3 1.0 39.0 0.9 38.1 1.3 44.4 1.8 38.5 1.4 37.9 2.0 35.2 1.8 28.6 1.5 28.2 1.7 1985 1987 1988 1990 Characteristic YC kC1 5% !CCI 7c KI YC XI Total 29.9 0.7 29.0 0.7 28.2 0.6 25.9 0.6 Gender Men Women 31.8 1.0 30.6 0.9 30.3 0.9 27.8 0.9 28.2 0.9 27.5 0.8 26.3 0.7 24.1 0.8 Agleg!y;rs) 35-54 33.6 1.2 32.2 1.1 31.9 1.1 29.7 1.0 33.7 1.2 33.7 1.0 32.1 1.0 29.9 1.0 21.5 1.0 20.2 0.9 19.7 0.8 16.8 0.8 255 Education_ Less than high school High school Some college College 33.7 1.6 34.8 1.6 33.7 1.3 32.0 1.5 33.1 1.2 32.6 1.1 32.6 1.0 30.0 1.0 30.3 1.6 28.5 1.3 27.8 1.3 24.9 1.2 18.3 1.2 16.9 1.0 16.2 1.0 13.7 0.9 *Data collected before 1978 do not distinguish between whites of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic whites; these data exclude those whites who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. 1976+ 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 35.0 0.7 34.0 1.2 33.4 0.8 33.0 1.1 32.3 0.7 39.0 1.0 37.3 1.9 36.6 1.0 36.5 1.6 34.6 1.1 31.8 1.1 31.1 1.3 30.6 1.0 29.8 1.5 30.2 0.9 38.9 1.5 37.0 1.8 37.3 1.3 35.2 1.8 36.0 1.2 41.1 1.1 40.5 2.0 38.4 1.3 38.8 2.0 37.4 1.3 25.1 1.1 23.6 1.7 23.6 0.9 24.3 1.6 22.5 1.1 35.7 1.3 35.6 2.2 35.1 1.5 35.5 2.0 35.3 1.6 37.8 1.4 37.0 1.9 35.3 1.3 34.9 2.0 34.8 1.3 37.0 1.8 34.1 3.1 35.7 1.8 33.9 3.1 32.8 1.9 25.9 1.7 23.8 2.6 23.2 1.6 24.4 2.3 20.1 1.5 35.9 40.7 31.9 40.0 41.2 25.0 36.6 37.6 37.6 27.2 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.7 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 YC XI YC %I Yc KI 5% XI YC ASI 26.0 0.6 27.5 0.9 24.6 0.7 29.8 1.0 30.0 1.0 17.3 0.8 33.3 1.5 30.6 0.9 24.9 1.2 13.8 0.9 27.2 0.8 25.4 0.8 25.5 0.7 25.6 1.0 28.6 1.2 27.0 1.2 28.2 1.1 27.1 1.5 25.9 1.1 24.0 1.0 23.1 0.9 24.1 1.3 32.8 1.5 30.1 1.4 29.3 1.4 29.7 1.8 30.1 1.3 29.3 1.4 28.9 1.2 28.3 1.6 17.5 1.2 15.8 1.1 16.2 1.1 17.8 1.3 32.0 2.0 31.8 2.6 31.9 1.8 33.3 2.6 31.9 1.4 29.1 1.3 29.8 1.3 30.2 1.7 25.9 1.7 24.9 1.7 25.7 1.7 24.1 1.9 14.8 1.3 13.5 1.3 12.3 1.1 14.0 1.6 `The 1976 and 1977 surveys collected data only for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and 1977 were statistically adjusted to produce estimates for the total population, males, and females that approximate those for whites aged 18 years and older. Estimates for ersons in the 18-34 year old age category were statisti- i$ cally adjusted to produce estimates that approximate thos t95'% confidence interval. for whites aged 18-34 years. 51ncludes persons aged 25 years and older. `Levels presented for 1965 are for persons who had a high school education or less and persons who attended some college or were college graduates. NA = data not available. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. Pnffer~ls of l-dm-co Use 99 Table 40. Percentage of adult white smokers* who reported smoking <15,1>24, and 2 25 cigarettes per day, overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 Characteristic Total <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 2 25 cigarettes Gender Men <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Women <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Age (years) 18-34 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 2 25 cigarettes 35-54 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 255 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Educations Less than high school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes High school cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Some college <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes College cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 1965 1966 1970 1974 YC KI 33.1 1.1 31.7 0.8 29.7 0.9 27.7 1.2 45.3 0.8 45.9 0.9 45.0 0.9 44.7 1.2 21.6 0.7 22.4 0.7 25.4 0.9 27.6 1.1 26.6 1.0 25.8 1.0 24.4 1.2 21.5 1.6 46.7 1.1 47.2 1.2 45.2 1.2 44.5 1.9 26.7 0.9 27.0 1.0 30.4 1.2 34.1 1.7 41.8 1.3 39.5 1.2 35.9 1.1 34.5 1.7 43.4 1.3 44.3 1.3 44.7 1.1 45.0 1.6 14.8 0.9 16.2 1.0 19.4 0.9 20.5 1.2 34.7 1.4 33.9 1.3 31.6 1.2 30.9 1.8 47.4 1.5 48.2 1.3 46.9 1.2 46.3 1.8 17.9 1.1 17.9 1.0 21.6 1.2 22.8 1.6 29.0 1.1 26.7 1.1 24.7 1.1 21.4 1.6 45.1 1.2 45.5 1.3 44.2 1.2 42.9 1.8 28.0 1.2 27.8 1.1 31.1 1.1 35.7 1.7 40.1 1.9 38.8 1.9 36.3 1.6 32.7 2.4 41.5 1.9 42.2 1.9 42.7 1.4 44.7 2.4 18.4 1.5 18.8 1.5 21.1 1.5 22.7 2.3 NA NA 30.7 1.3 28.6 1.5 25.7 2.0 NA NA 45.8 1.3 44.3 1.2 45.1 2.1 NA NA 23.5 1.2 27.0 1.4 29.2 1.8 31.1l 1.0 28.5 1.4 26.2 1.4 25.7 2.0 15.9l 1.1 46.9 1.7 47.3 1.4 44.7 2.3 23.0' 0.9 24.6 1.4 26.5 1.3 29.6 1.9 NA NA 29.4 2.7 27.1 2.4 23.1 3.1 NA NA 44.6 3.0 43.1 2.8 42.7 3.3 NA NA 26.0 2.6 29.8 2.2 34.2 2.6 33.2A 2.0 35.0 3.1 31.7 2.1 27.9 3.9 42.3' 2.2 39.2 3.2 40.2 2.8 43.0 3.8 24.5' 2.0 25.9 2.8 28.1 3.1 29.1 3.4 *Data collected before 1978 do not distinguish between whites of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic whites; these data exclude those whites who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. For 1965-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. NA = data not available. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. Tdacco Use Amot~g U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups 1976+ YC %I 27.8 1.2 26.9 1.2 23.7 1.5 24.4 45.2 1.3 43.6 1.4 44.7 1.7 44.7 27.0 1.2 27.5 1.4 31.6 1.6 30.9 23.2 1.6 23.8 1.2 44.6 1.9 46.8 1.4 32.2 1.9 29.4 1.3 22.0 45.2 32.8 1.6 1 .6 1 .7 20.5 1.3 17.8 1.9 20.0 41.6 1.7 43.6 2.5 43.1 33.5 1.8 38.6 2.3 36.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1 .7 1 .7 .6 .9 .5 17.7 2.2 17.8 1.5 44.3 2.7 45.1 2.0 38.0 2.7 37.1 1.6 34.0 45.1 21.0 .7 .8 5 .L 33.7 1.6 30.1 2.4 29.2 45.8 1.9 45.8 2.3 46.5 21.0 1.6 24.1 2.3 24.4 29.3 2.1 30.1 1.7 44.8 2.6 48.4 1.9 25.9 2.3 21.5 1.6 30.0 47.3 22.6 .8 .9 .9 29.9 1.7 25.2 2.2 26.5 45.9 1.9 47.8 2.6 47.4 21.9 2.1 27.0 2.7 26.1 .7 25.2 2.7 27.5 1.9 .8 48.0 2.9 49.9 2.0 .5 26.9 2.6 22.7 1.7 22.7 1.7 21.2 1.8 19.0 2.3 19.2 1.5 17.6 2.6 18.0 1.7 43.3 2.0 42.6 2.0 41.5 2.7 41.8 2.2 40.5 2.9 42.6 2.2 34.0 1.8 36.3 2.0 39.5 2.4 39.0 2.2 41.9 3.4 39.4 2.2 32.0 2.5 31.6 2.6 28.9 3.6 28.8 2.6 28.7 3.2 26.0 2.5 43.8 2.7 42.9 2.9 43.9 4.1 44.1 3.0 44.7 3.7 47.3 2.9 24.2 2.3 25.6 2.5 27.2 3.7 27.2 2.5 26.6 3.3 26.7 2.5 26.7 1.9 26.2 2.1 23.3 2.9 23.1 2.0 21.2 3.0 20.4 2.2 44.5 2.2 43.3 2.7 44.1 3.3 44.0 2.6 44.9 3.7 45.4 2.9 28.8 2.2 30.5 2.3 32.7 2.4 32.9 2.2 33.9 3.6 34.3 2.7 24.2 1.8 22.7 1.7 22.4 2.5 20.5 1.7 21.0 2.7 21.3 1.8 46.3 2.3 45.6 2.1 43.8 2.7 46.0 2.3 44.6 3.5 46.0 2.3 29.5 2.2 31.7 2.1 33.8 2.9 33.5 2.1 34.4 3.4 32.7 2.2 26.2 3.6 27.8 3.2 18.9 3.2 22.0 3.0 18.0 4.2 21.2 2.9 41.8 3.4 41.4 3.6 44.2 5.7 42.1 3.2 45.9 5.5 46.3 3.6 32.0 3.4 30.8 3.1 37.0 5.5 35.9 3.0 36.0 4.7 32.5 3.4 30.4 3.7 30.4 3.1 25.8 5.2 29.6 3.7 27.7 5.0 28.4 3.8 41.2 4.4 40.2 3.8 41.1 5.9 37.2 3.9 35.2 5.4 40.9 4.2 28.4 3.3 29.4 3.7 33.2 4.7 33.2 3.6 37.1 5.7 30.7 4.2 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 YC ASI 5% ASI YC ?CI YC KI 70 KI +The 1976 and 1977 surveys collected data only for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and 1977 were statistically adjusted to produce estimates for the total population, males, and females that approximate those for whites aged 18 years and older. Estimates for persons in the 18-34 year old age category were statisti- cally adjusted to produce estimates that approximate those for whites aged 18-34 years. 195% confidence interval. SIncludes persons aged 25 years and older. `Levels presented for 1965 are for persons who had a high school education or less and persons who attended some college or were college graduates. Patterns of Tobacco Use 101 Surgem Gerzeral'.s Xcport Table 40. Continued Characteristic 1985 1987 1988 1990 % KIS % 3.3 % WI % %I 26.1 1.1 25.4 1.0 24.7 1.0 27.9 1.1 43.6 1.3 43.7 1.1 45.7 1.1 45.2 1.2 30.3 1.2 30.9 1.1 29.6 1.0 26.9 1.2 20.1 1.6 20.6 1.4 20.4 1.3 21.7 1.4 42.6 1.9 40.6 1.6 43.9 1.6 43.9 1.8 37.3 1.8 38.8 1.6 35.7 1.6 34.5 1.9 32.1 1.6 30.3 1.5 29.3 1.5 34.5 1.6 44.7 1.7 46.9 1.6 47.5 1.6 46.6 1.6 23.2 1.4 22.8 1.4 23.3 1.2 19.0 1.4 31.1 1.9 29.8 1.7 29.3 1.7 34.9 1.9 45.2 2.0 45.6 1.8 47.7 1.8 47.3 1.9 23.8 1.7 24.6 1.5 22.9 1.5 17.8 1.6 19.0 1.7 20.1 1.6 18.1 1.5 20.4 1.6 41.1 2.1 41.3 1.8 43.7 1.8 43.4 2.0 39.9 2.1 38.6 1.5 38.3 1.8 36.2 2.0 Total <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Gender Men <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Women <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Age (years) IS-34 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 35-54 cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 255 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Educations Less than high school cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes High school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Some college <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes College <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes x95% confidence interval. $Includes persons aged 25 years and older. 27.7 2.4 26.3 1.6 27.7 2.0 29.1 2.5 44.7 2.6 44.6 1.8 45.0 2.2 44.5 2.5 27.6 2.3 29.2 1.9 27.2 2.1 26.4 2.3 19.5 2.2 19.9 2.1 19.1 1.8 19.5 2.2 44.3 2.7 44.2 2.4 44.5 2.4 48.6 2.9 36.2 2.7 35.8 2.4 36.5 2.4 31.9 2.7 23.1 1.8 22.8 1.5 20.5 1.4 24.5 1.7 44.5 2.1 43.4 1.8 47.7 1.8 45.8 1.9 32.4 1.9 33.8 1.8 31.8 1.6 29.6 1.8 26.3 2.8 24.9 2.3 25.6 2.3 27.8 2.6 42.0 3.1 43.0 2.8 43.2 2.7 43.5 3.1 31.7 2.9 32.2 2.7 32.2 2.4 28.7 2.8 30.5 3.4 31.0 3.1 32.4 2.9 35.1 3.3 37.9 3.7 39.9 3.4 39.5 3.2 39.6 3.4 31.6 3.6 29.2 3.0 28.1 2.9 25.3 3.3 Tobrrcco USE Among U.S. Racial/Ethic Minority Groups 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 7c KI R kc1 c kC1 5% %I 70 XI 29.8 1.2 31.7 1.5 32.5 1.7 35.6 1.8 35.0 2.0 45.0 1.3 43.3 1.6 44.9 1.7 44.4 1.9 41.8 2.1 25.2 1.2 25.0 1.4 22.6 1.4 20.0 1.4 23.2 1.8 24.6 1.6 25.8 1.9 27.5 2.4 30.5 2.5 28.0 2.6 43.4 1.7 41.8 2.4 43.0 2.5 44.3 2.7 41.6 3.0 31.9 1.8 32.4 2.2 29.5 2.3 25.1 2.2 30.4 2.8 35.0 1.6 37.7 2.3 37.6 2.3 40.8 2.5 42.3 2.8 46.6 1.7 44.9 2.2 46.8 2.4 44.5 2.4 41.9 2.8 18.4 1.3 17.4 1.6 15.6 1.8 14.6 1.9 15.8 2.0 36.5 2.0 37.4 2.6 39.5 3.0 42.5 3.0 44.3 3.4 46.1 2.1 43.9 2.5 45.6 2.8 45.4 3.1 41.1 3.4 17.5 1.7 18.6 2.2 15.0 2.0 12.1 1.7 14.6 2.9 23.9 1.6 26.8 2.3 27.6 2.6 29.6 2.6 31.0 3.0 43.4 1.9 42.3 2.8 44.1 2.5 42.9 2.6 41.6 3.0 32.7 1.9 30.9 2.4 28.3 2.4 27.6 2.5 27.4 2.6 29.1 2.1 29.9 3.2 30.0 3.4 34.6 3.6 27.0 3.4 46.2 2.4 44.2 3.6 45.2 4.1 45.9 4.1 43.2 4.2 24.7 2.2 25.9 2.9 24.8 3.1 19.5 3.2 29.8 4.2 21.4 2.2 24.6 3.2 25.3 3.5 25.6 3.5 19.9 3.7 43.8 2.6 41.5 3.7 45.9 4.0 44.5 4.5 45.4 4.8 34.8 2.7 33.9 3.7 28.8 3.7 29.9 4.1 34.7 4.6 25.7 1.6 26.7 2.3 28.2 2.5 30.5 2.7 29.2 2.8 47.7 1.9 46.3 2.8 46.2 2.7 46.8 2.9 45.0 3.1 26.6 1.9 27.0 2.4 25.6 2.4 22.7 2.3 25.8 3.0 33.0 2.7 33.7 3.7 34.0 3.7 36.8 43.6 2.9 42.0 3.6 44.3 4.3 44.0 23.4 2.4 24.3 3.5 21.8 3.4 19.2 4.4 4.0 3.3 5.4 5.3 3.7 40.2 4.6 39.2 4.6 20.6 3.8 35.3 3.4 43.2 4.5 42.1 5.4 48.7 42.9 3.4 37.6 4.6 37.7 5.0 36.9 21.8 2.9 19.2 4.1 20.2 3.8 14.4 50.6 5.6 34.0 5.5 15.4 3.8 - Patterns of Tobacco Use 103 Surgeon Gmt~ral `s Report Table 41. Percentage of adult white ever smokers who have quit,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 1965 1966 1970 1974 Characteristic % ?-cIS % XI % kc1 % kc1 Total 25.2 0.6 25.3 0.6 34.3 0.8 36.1 0.9 Gender Men Women 28.9 0.8 28.9 0.8 39.0 1.0 41.0 1.1 19.6 0.9 19.6 0.9 27.8 0.9 29.6 1.4 Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 17.6 0.9 16.9 0.9 25.9 1.1 26.2 1.7 24.5 1.0 25.0 0.9 33.5 1.1 35.2 1.2 38.3 1.6 38.2 1.5 47.5 1.3 51.0 1.8 Education5 Less than high school NA NA 26.4 1.0 34.6 1.2 36.2 1.6 High school 25.4' 0.8 25.1 1.2 34.5 1.0 36.3 1.5 Some college NA NA 28.4 2.2 37.1 1.6 39.5 2.5 College 33.2+ 1.6 38.5 2.3 49.7 2.3 50.6 2.4 Characteristic 1985 1987 1988 1990 % ASI 7c kc1 % KI 70 KI Total 46.6 1.0 46.2 0.9 47.7 0.9 50.9 1.0 Gender Men Women 51.0 1.3 50.5 1.2 51.1 1.2 54.2 1.3 41.0 1.3 40.9 1.3 43.5 1.1 47.0 1.2 Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 32.4 1.5 31.4 1.4 32.3 1.5 35.1 1.6 46.2 1.6 44.6 1.5 45.9 1.4 48.6 1.5 62.2 1.6 63.1 1.5 65.0 1.3 68.9 1.3 Education5 Less than high school 46.5 2.1 44.3 1.9 45.7 1.7 47.8 2.0 High school 44.5 1.6 44.8 1.4 45.0 1.4 48.2 1.5 Some college 48.7 2.3 48.9 1.9 50.7 1.9 54.0 1.9 College 63.7 2.2 63.0 2.1 64.6 1.8 68.7 1.9 *Data collected before 1978 do not distinguish between whites of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic whites; these data exclude those whites who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. The prevalence of cessation is the percentage of ever smokers who are former smokers. Former smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they were not smoking, and ever smokers include current and former smokers. `The 1976 and 1977 surveys collected data only for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and 1977 were statistically adjusted to produce estimates for the total population, males, and females that approximate those for whites aged 18 years and older. Estimates for persons in the 18-34 year old age category were statisti- cally adjusted to produce estimates that approximate those for whites aged 18-34 years. Tohncco Use Amolzg U.S. XaciallEthnic Mhorify Groups 1976+ 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 36.5 41.3 30.4 25.3 36.5 51.6 37.1 36.6 39.7 49.4 1.0 36.3 1.3 41.4 1.5 30.0 1.3 26.8 1.7 35.2 1.9 50.7 1.9 36.8 1.7 36.1 2.8 39.4 2.7 50.2 1.0 39.5 1.7 40.5 1.2 40.8 1.1 44.7 2.1 45.3 1.3 45.2 1.5 32.8 2.0 34.3 1.7 35.0 1.8 29.1 2.3 29.4 1.5 30.5 1.5 36.7 2.6 39.7 1.8 39.8 1.9 56.0 2.7 55.5 1.6 54.5 1.7 39.1 2.7 41.2 1.9 39.7 1.9 39.0 2.3 40.2 1.8 40.7 2.2 44.9 3.9 41.7 2.4 43.5 2.8 54.5 3.9 55.6 2.7 54.2 1.7 42.0 2.1 46.6 2.4 36.2 2.3 29.1 2.6 40.3 2.9 59.0 3.0 41.5 2.7 41.9 4.3 44.6 3.9 57.9 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.1 1.7 2.6 2.7 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 7c KI R %I 7c 2321 7c XI % 321 50.5 0.9 48.5 1.3 51.6 1.3 51.0 1.3 50.5 1.6 54.2 1.2 52.0 1.7 54.6 1.7 53.7 1.7 52.9 2.2 46.2 1.3 44.4 1.8 48.1 1.7 47.8 1.9 47.6 2.1 31.9 1.5 27.4 2.0 31.4 2.0 29.0 2.2 31.5 2.6 48.7 1.4 48.0 1.9 48.6 2.0 49.3 1.9 48.6 2.4 68.8 1.3 68.1 2.0 71.8 1.8 72.1 1.8 68.0 2.2 46.0 2.0 49.1 2.7 49.2 3.4 47.1 2.8 46.5 3.3 48.0 1.4 45.6 2.0 49.8 1.9 48.5 2.1 47.2 2.4 54.9 1.9 53.6 2.7 55.1 2.6 54.7 2.8 55.7 3.0 67.8 1.8 64.2 2.6 68.1 2.6 70.8 2.6 66.1 3.4 t95% confidence interval. kcludes persons aged 25 years and older. `Levels presented for 1965 are for persons who had a high school education or less and persons who attended some college or were college graduates. NA = data not available. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. Paftcms of Tobacco Use 105 Surgeolr Genernl's Report Table 42. Percentage of white women of reproductive age who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 1965 1966 1970 1974 1976+ Characteristic % +CIS % +CI % +CI YO +CI % +CI Total 42.2 1.1 41.5 1.1 36.8 1.2 37.3 1.7 36.4 1.5 Educations Less than high school NA NA 48.0 2.2 46.7 2.0 50.5 3.1 49.4 4.4 High school 44.2 1.4 41.3 1.8 36.6 1.8 38.2 2.5 38.0 2.5 Some college NA NA 43.8 3.8 37.5 3.2 35.2 4.3 34.8 4.4 College 41.3 2.9 34.6 4.4 27.2 2.6 25.5 3.3 25.0 3.4 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 R +CI % *CI % +CI % +CI % +CI Total 36.8 1.5 35.6 2.1 36.0 1.4 33.2 1.9 35.5 1.3 Educations Less than high school 47.6 3.9 56.1 5.9 52.0 3.9 53.9 7.0 53.6 4.6 High school 37.3 2.5 38.4 3.2 37.3 2.4 33.4 3.6 39.4 2.4 Some college 35.3 3.6 31.8 5.8 36.3 4.3 32.2 5.3 30.8 3.2 College 24.7 3.6 20.1 4.3 21.9 2.7 22.8 4.4 17.8 2.5 1985 1987 1988 1990 1991 % +CI % +CI % +a Yo +CI 70 +CI Total 32.5 1.3 31.1 1.1 30.3 1.0 27.9 1.1 28.7 1.1 Educations Less than high school 55.1 4.4 60.6 3.7 57.9 3.9 58.4 4.3 59.6 3.8 High school 37.1 2.1 36.5 1.8 35.7 1.8 34.4 1.8 36.5 2.0 Some college 28.8 2.7 29.2 2.2 29.2 2.3 24.5 2.1 25.1 2.0 College 14.9 2.2 15.1 1.7 14.2 1.6 10.9 1.5 11.8 1.5 1992 1993 1994 1995 x +CI w +CI % +CI % +CI Total 30.7 1.6 29.1 1.4 30.6 1.6 28.2 1.8 Educations Less than high school 55.5 6.0 60.1 6.2 56.1 7.2 51.7 7.8 High school 38.3 2.8 38.6 2.7 40.2 2.9 37.0 3.4 Some college 28.3 2.9 23.4 2.8 27.2 3.2 26.0 3.6 College 14.3 2.2 11.5 2.0 11.6 2.3 15.3 2.9 *Data collected before 1978 do not distinguish between whites of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic whites; these data exclude those whites who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. For 1965-1991, current cigarette smokers include women aged 18-44 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include women aged 18-44 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `The 1976 and 1977 surveys collected data only for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and 1977 were statisticallv adjusted to produce estimates that approximate those for white women aged 18-44 years. $95% confidence'interval. SIncludes persons aged 25 years and older. NA = data not available. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. 1 Oh Chapter 2 Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Table 43. Percentage of white adults who reported being current cigarette smokers," overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic % fCIS Yc KI % +c1 70 +c1 Yo +c1 Yo +c1 Total 33.5 0.7 30.9 0.6 28.6 0.5 25.9 0.5 Gender Men Women Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 Education_ Less than high school High school Some college College 36.8 1.0 32.9 0.8 30.5 0.7 27.6 0.7 30.5 0.8 29.0 0.7 26.9 0.6 24.4 0.6 36.7 1.1 34.6 0.9 32.0 0.8 29.8 0.8 39.0 1.0 35.1 1.0 32.9 0.7 30.0 0.7 23.7 0.8 21.9 0.7 19.9 0.7 17.1 0.6 35.3 1.2 34.4 1.3 34.2 1.1 32.6 1.1 35.6 1.1 33.8 0.9 32.6 0.8 30.3 0.7 34.8 1.3 31.2 1.3 28.2 1.0 24.9 0.9 23.6 1.2 19.0 1.0 16.5 0.7 13.8 0.7 26.4 0.6 25.9 0.7 27.8 0.8 27.6 0.9 25.0 0.8 24.4 0.8 31.6 1.1 31.3 1.2 29.7 1.0 28.7 1.1 16.7 0.8 16.8 0.9 31.9 1.6 33.8 1.7 30.6 1.0 30.3 1.1 25.4 1.2 24.7 1.3 14.2 0.9 13.3 1.0 *These data exclude whites who indicated thev were of Hispanic origin. For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95% confidence interval. 51ncludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Pafterns of Tobacco Use 107 Surgeon General's Report Table 44. Percentage of adult white smokers* who reported smoking <15,15-24, or 225 cigarettes per day, overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic % *cc Yo fC1 R +c1 % +c1 % fC1 % fC1 Total Cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Gender Men Cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Women Cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Age (years) 18-34 Cl 5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 35-54 Cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 255 Cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 24.0 0.7 25.1 0.8 25.0 0.7 28.9 0.8 32.1 1.1 35.3 1.3 44.7 0.9 44.9 0.9 44.7 0.8 45.1 0.9 44.0 1.2 43.1 1.4 31.4 0.9 30.0 0.9 30.3 0.8 26.1 0.9 23.9 1.1 21.6 1.1 18.9 0.9 19.1 1.2 20.5 1.0 23.2 1.1 26.6 1.6 29.3 1.8 43.5 1.3 43.7 1.3 42.3 1.1 43.6 1.3 42.3 1.8 43.0 2.0 37.6 1.3 37.2 1.4 37.3 1.2 33.2 1.3 31.1 1.6 27.7 1.8 29.4 1.1 45.9 1.3 24.7 1.1 25.9 1.3 47.6 1.2 26.5 1.3 18.8 1.0 18.6 1.4 19.1 1.1 22.2 1.1 27.2 1.7 30.3 2.0 41.4 1.6 41.7 1.7 42.5 1.3 43.4 1.5 43.1 1.8 42.2 2.0 39.8 1.5 39.7 1.7 38.4 1.3 34.4 1.5 29.7 1.6 27.5 1.8 28.8 1.7 27.0 1.7 27.0 1.4 29.1 1.6 29.9 2.5 30.5 2.5 44.2 2.0 45.8 1.8 44.8 1.6 45.4 1.7 44.7 2.7 44.4 2.9 27.1 1.7 27.2 1.7 28.2 1.5 25.5 1.6 25.4 2.2 25.0 2.7 46.2 1 22.5 1 29.6 1 47.1 1 23.3 1.2 29.8 1.0 47.2 1.1 23.0 0.9 29.6 1.2 46.7 1.3 23.8 1.1 46.6 1 18.7 1 35.7 1 46.7 1 17.6 1.2 37.7 1.6 41.6 1.9 45.7 1.6 43.2 1.8 16.6 1.2 15.2 1.4 38.3 2.0 43.3 2.2 44.6 1.9 43.4 2.3 17.1 1.5 13.3 1.6 *These data exclude those whites who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. 308 Chapter 2 7%mxn Use Allzollg U.S. Racial/Ethnic Miuority Croup Table 44. Continued 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic - R fCIS % KI % XI % +c1 % fC1 x +c1 Education5 Less than high school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes High school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 125 cigarettes Some college <15 cigarettes 15-i-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes College <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 22.7 1.4 19.9 1.6 19.5 1.4 20.5 1.6 24.9 2.3 22.8 2.6 44.2 1.9 44.8 2.0 44.3 1.7 46.1 1.9 43.5 2.8 45.0 3.3 33.1 1.6 35.4 1.9 36.1 1.7 33.4 1.9 31.6 2.7 32.2 3.1 21.1 1.2 45.1 1.9 33.8 1.7 20.4 1.9 24.3 2.3 25.3 1.6 30.5 1.9 33.8 2.7 38.5 3.2 43.5 2.1 43.7 2.5 43.1 2.0 43.5 2.2 43.1 2.8 41.7 3.1 36.2 2.4 32.0 2.4 31.7 1.7 26.0 1.8 23.1 2.3 19.9 2.5 28.2 2.8 29.6 2.7 31.7 2.3 35.2 2.4 42.7 3.4 49.7 3.9 37.6 2.9 39.2 2.7 39.7 2.3 41.3 2.3 37.6 3.3 35.3 3.8 34.2 2.5 31.2 2.6 28.6 2.1 23.5 2.2 19.6 2.7 15.0 2.6 22.4 1.3 21.6 1.0 25.1 1.2 27.4 1.6 29.9 2.0 45.1 1.5 45.6 1.3 46.8 1.4 46.2 1.9 45.9 2.1 32.5 1.5 32.8 1.2 28.1 1.4 26.4 1.7 24.2 1.9 `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95'% confidence interval. %cludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Patterns of Tobacco Use 109 Table 45. Percentage of adult white ever smokers who have quit,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic % KIT 7r fC1 % +c1 % fC1 % KI % KI Total 40.3 1.1 44.7 0.8 46.9 0.7 50.7 0.7 50.0 0.9 50.7 1.0 Gender Men Women 45.1 1.2 49.3 1.0 50.8 0.9 54.2 0.9 53.2 1.2 53.3 1.4 34.1 1.4 39.1 1.0 42.2 0.9 46.6 0.9 46.1 1.3 47.7 1.4 Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 29.6 1.3 31.1 1.1 31.8 1.1 33.5 1.1 29.2 1.5 30.2 1.7 39.0 1.3 43.9 1.3 45.3 1.1 48.6 1.1 48.3 1.3 49.0 1.5 55.4 1.4 60.9 1.2 64.1 1.0 68.9 0.9 69.9 1.3 70.1 1.4 Education5 Less than high school 40.3 1.4 44.5 1.8 45.0 1.4 46.9 1.5 49.1 2.1 46.8 2.2 High school 40.0 1.5 43.5 1.1 44.9 1.1 48.1 1.0 47.6 1.5 47.9 1.6 Some college 42.9 1.8 47.1 1.8 49.8 1.4 54.5 1.3 54.3 1.8 55.2 2.0 College 55.0 2.2 61.6 1.7 63.8 1.4 68.2 1.4 66.1 1.9 68.4 2.2 *These data exclude those whites who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. The prevalence of cessation is the percentage of ever smokers who are former smokers. Former smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they were not current smokers, and ever smokers include current and former smokers. `1978, 1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. t95% confidence interval. %cludes persons aged 25 years and older. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Table 46. Percentage of white women of reproductive age who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1978-1995 aggregate data 1978-1980+ 1983-1985+ 1987-1988+ 1990-1991+ 1992-1993+ 1994-1995+ Characteristic 7c fCIS % KI % KI 7c fC1 % fC1 % fC1 Total 35.3 1.2 33.7 1.0 30.7 0.8 28.3 0.8 30.0 1.2 29.4 1.2 Education Less than high school 53.4 3.0 54.5 3.4 59.2 2.7 59.0 3.0 57.5 4.2 53.9 5.2 High school 36.6 1.8 38.0 1.7 36.1 1.4 35.5 1.3 38.5 2.1 38.6 2.3 Some college 34.2 2.8 29.6 2.1 29.2 1.7 24.8 1.5 26.0 2.1 26.6 2.4 College 21.7 1.9 16.0 1.6 14.6 1.2 11.4 1.0 13.0 1.4 13.5 1.8 *These data exclude whites who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. For 1978-1991, current cigarette smokers include women aged 18-44 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include women aged 18-44 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currentIy smoked every day or on some days. `1978,1979, and 1980 data were combined; 1983 and 1985 data were combined; 1987 and 1988 data were combined; 1990 and 1991 data were combined; 1992 and 1993 data were combined; and 1994 and 1995 data were combined. $95% confidence interval. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978-1995. Appendix 4. Patterns of Cigarette Use Among Among African Americans Table 47. Percentage of adult African Americans who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 Characteristic 1965 1966 1970 1974 % XI* % KI % KI % ASI Total 45.8 1.5 45.9 1.7 41.4 1.8 44.0 2.2 Gender Men Women Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 Educations Less than high school High school Some college College 60.4 2.8 60.1 2.5 52.9 2.0 54.4 3.9 33.7 2.3 34.2 2.3 32.2 2.5 36.4 2.6 53.2 2.8 52.4 2.9 46.0 2.8 46.2 3.5 50.3 3.0 52.6 2.9 47.0 2.2 53.3 3.8 27.0 3.2 24.8 3.1 25.1 2.3 28.0 3.8 44.6 2.4 41.0 2.1 43.3 3.2 51.9 4.6 45.4 3.8 49.1 4.3 52.9 7.8 43.0 6.0 37.3 8.6 39.6 8.5 34.2 6.4 44.9 9.1 44.6A 2.0 37.5A 5.8 1985 1987 1988 1990 Characteristic % KIS R KI % kc1 % XI Total 35.0 1.8 32.9 1.6 31.7 1.6 26.2 1.5 Gender -Men Women 39.9 3.0 38.7 2.8 36.6 2.5 32.6 2.4 31.2 2.2 28.2 1.8 27.8 1.9 21.2 1.6 Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 34.0 2.8 32.6 2.4 31.5 2.4 25.0 2.2 42.3 3.4 38.6 2.8 36.0 2.6 32.6 2.7 27.7 3.0 25.9 2.9 26.4 2.7 19.2 2.4 Educations Less than high school High school Some college College 39.6 3.0 37.7 2.9 35.0 2.5 30.6 2.8 39.1 3.4 38.7 2.9 38.8 2.9 31.9 2.5 35.0 4.9 34.2 4.0 31.9 3.7 25.7 3.8 28.4 6.1 18.3 3.9 20.9 4.6 17.5 3.8 `Data collected before 1978 do not distinguish between blacks of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic blacks; these data exclude those African Americans who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. For 197&1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days. `The 1976 and 1977 survevs collected data only for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and 1977 were statistically adjusted to produce e&mates for the total population, males, and females that approximate those for African Americans aged 18 years and older. Estimates for persons in the 18-34 year old age category were statistically adjusted to produce estimates that approximate those for African Americans aged 18-34 years old. Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethic Minority Gruuys 1976+ 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 70 KI 7c kc1 % kc1 % KI % KI % AXI 2.1 40.7 3.3 47.3 3.1 35.9 3.1 44.4 3.7 46.9 3.3 29.9 2.8 40.2 4.7 48.2 7.5 41.8 10.3 37.1 2.5 37.5 3.7 37.3 2.4 37.1 3.3 35.8 2.2 4.0 3.1 3.9 4.2 4.3 46.1 5.5 44.5 3.7 44.9 4.4 40.8 3.5 31.1 4.5 31.6 2.5 31.0 4.3 31.8 2.6 39.1 5.8 38.0 3.2 39.9 4.5 35.8 3.2 46.0 6.1 44.4 3.9 40.5 6.9 42.1 4.1 24.4 5.2 27.0 4.0 27.5 6.6 27.9 4.2 3.9 36.7 4.8 37.3 3.6 33.7 6.5 37.4 3.9 4.9 40.6 5.1 40.5 4.8 47.6 7.2 39.4 4.3 7.4 46.0 9.9 35.5 6.4 30.8 8.7 34.4 6.3 8.4 37.3 13.5 36.3 7.5 29.4 8.8 28.4 7.3 40.8 49.3 34.6 44.2 46.9 27.5 38.9 44.5 49.4 36.3 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % kc1 5% kc1 % KI 7% KI 7e kc1 29.4 1.6 27.8 2.0 26.0 2.0 27.2 2.3 25.8 2.6 35.5 2.7 32.3 3.5 32.4 3.4 33.9 4.0 28.8 3.7 24.5 1.9 24.1 2.2 21.0 2.2 21.8 2.2 23.5 3.1 27.0 2.4 22.4 3.0 21.6 3.3 22.0 3.4 19.9 3.4 38.3 2.7 38.0 3.7 33.6 3.6 34.7 3.9 33.6 4.6 20.7 2.7 22.4 3.5 22.3 4.1 24.0 4.0 23.0 3.8 35.4 3.0 34.4 4.5 33.9 4.5 35.3 4.5 34.1 5.0 34.9 2.6 32.3 3.7 31.4 3.8 31.6 4.5 31.0 5.0 31.8 3.8 28.4 4.8 26.6 4.4 27.6 5.4 25.2 5.1 18.0 4.2 22.4 6.6 13.9 4.6 15.7 5.2 17.6 5.4 t95% confidence interval. SIncludes persons aged 25 years and older. `Levels presented for 1965 are for persons who had a high school education or less and persons who attended some college or were college graduates. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. Pa ttems of Tobacco Use 113 Table 48. Percentage of adult African American smokers* who reported smoking <15,15-24, or 125 cigarettes per day, overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 Characteristic 1965 1966 1970 1974 % ?a* % KI % KI % 321 Total cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Gender Men cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Women <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 35-54 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 255 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Educations Less than high school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes High school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 ci B arettes Some co1 ege <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Colle e t 5.3 6.8 5.3 7.6 7.3 5.1 7.1 *Data collected before 1978 do not distin uish between African Americans of His % African Americans; these data exclude t ose African Americans who indicated t R anic origin and non-Hispanic ey were of Hispanic origin. For 1965-1991, current cigarette smokers include persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include fl ersons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey t at they currently smoked every day or on some days. +The 1976 and 1977 surveys collected data only for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and 1977 were statistically adjusted to produce estimates for the total population, males, and females that approximate those for African Americans aged 18 years and older. Estimates for persons in the 18-34 year old a were statistically adjusted to produce estimates that approximate those for African Amerrcans age B e category 18-34 years old. Tobacco Use AVZOJZ~ U.S. Racial/Efhnic Mimrify Groups 197ci+ 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 7c kc1 R kC1 9% %I c &CT 7c XI % kC1 52.4 3.9 54.7 4.8 57.0 5.1 55.9 3.2 55.2 5.7 54.9 3.9 39.0 3.7 35.7 4.4 34.0 4.6 33.3 3.1 33.8 4.8 35.6 3.7 8.6 2.1 9.8 2.1 9.1 2.8 10.8 1.6 11.0 3.3 9.5 2.4 44.7 4.7 48.4 5.9 49.5 7.3 51.5 4.9 48.8 44.2 4.4 35.3 5.2 37.3 6.3 36.3 4.7 38.7 11.2 3.0 12.6 3.9 13.2 5.1 12.2 2.6 12.5 9.2 Ei 51.4 36.5 12.1 Z:i; 4.1 60.3 5.8 61.2 6.2 65.0 7.0 60.8 4.4 62.1 6.8 58.5 5.1 33.8 5.9 36.1 5.6 30.4 6.4 30.0 3.8 28.5 6.3 34.6 5.0 6.0 2.2 6.9 2.3 4.6 3.0 9.2 2.6 9.4 3.2 6.9 2.5 56.5 5.5 59.4 5.8 60.3 7.9 60.5 5.2 57.8 35.9 5.3 34.8 6.3 31.5 7.0 31.1 4.3 33.1 7.6 2.6 8.0 3.4 8.2 4.2 8.4 2.5 9.1 6.0 !:i 57.7 33.0 9.4 5.7 E 44.8 44.0 11.3 ii:; 3.4 51.6 7.3 53.0 8.4 48.4 5.1 56.1 10.5 47.6 6.4 33.4 6.2 37.2 7.5 36.2 4.5 32.1 9.2 40.6 6.1 13.0 3.6 9.8 4.8 15.4 4.3 11.8 7.1 11.9 4.4 57.4 6.4 51.1 8.6 56.1 12.6 59.1 8.7 46.5 11.9 61.7 8.8 36.9 6.8 40.2 7.5 33.9 12.5 33.3 8.6 38.9 10.6 32.9 8.6 5.8 3.7 8.7 4.5 10.0 7.2 7.6 4.1 14.7 10.4 5.4 4.0 50.4 5.8 54.1 7.0 53.4 9.2 52.8 5.7 53.9 41.2 5.1 35.2 5.6 35.4 8.3 32.9 5.2 32.6 8.3 3.3 10.7 3.2 11.3 5.4 14.3 4.2 13.6 E 7:3 52.8 34.0 13.2 2:: 5.1 48.4 6.9 53.9 44.3 6.2 34.0 7.3 3.1 12.1 7.9 2: 60.4 9.5 53.5 5.6 48.9 31.1 9.1 36.1 6.3 35.8 8.5 5.5 10.4 4.4 15.3 i. : 5:6 52.6 7.0 42.1 6.9 5.4 3.1 54.7 29.2 16.1 44.9 38.8 16.3 11.7 9.9 7.9 14.9 13.9 13.0 49.5 12.0 41.5 17.6 57.0 11.5 44.7 18.2 50.2 12.1 42.8 12.7 46.1 16.8 30.1 9.2 42.7 18.5 37.1 11.7 7.7 6.0 12.5 9.0 13.0 6.8 12.5 11.0 12.7 7.9 48.1 15.6 71.9 17.1 47.5 13.2 65.7 18.7 51.6 15.3 37.9 15.6 22.6 12.5 40.1 11.5 31.1 18.3 36.7 14.8 14.0 9.6 5.5 9.8 12.5 9.2 3.3 6.4 11.7 10.9 $95X confidence interval. Vncludes persons aged 25 years and older. "Levels presented for 1965 are for some college or were college gra 1 ersons who had a high school education or less and persons who attended uates. NA = data not available. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. Table 48. Continued Characteristic 1985 1987 1988 1990 70 kCIS 5% KI % KI % kC1 Total cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Gender Men <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Women <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Age (years) 18-34 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 35-54 cl5 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 255 <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Educations Less than high school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes High school <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes Some college <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes College <15 cigarettes 15-24 cigarettes 225 cigarettes 55.8 3.2 61.2 2.9 56.4 2.7 59.9 3.2 35.0 2.9 31.0 2.8 34.6 2.5 34.2 3.2 9.3 1.9 7.8 1.6 9.0 1.6 6.0 1.5 52.8 5.2 55.3 4.2 51.0 4.1 52.6 4.7 36.2 4.3 35.8 4.4 38.2 3.8 40.1 4.7 11.0 3.2 8.9 2.4 10.8 2.5 7.3 2.3 58.7 3.9 67.9 3.5 62.2 3.9 68.8 3.6 33.7 3.8 25.7 3.2 30.7 3.6 26.9 3.4 7.6 2.0 6.5 1.8 7.2 2.0 4.3 1.7 56.4 5.4 66.2 4.5 62.1 4.0 67.5 4.9 35.4 4.8 27.6 4.0 29.4 3.7 25.8 4.6 8.2 3.0 6.2 2.3 8.5 2.4 6.7 2.5 53.1 4.8 54.9 4.6 49.2 4.3 51.9 4.9 35.9 4.6 34.9 4.6 40.5 4.4 42.2 4.7 11.0 3.0 10.1 2.4 10.3 2.5 5.9 2.2 59.6 6.5 61.5 7.1 56.8 7.3 60.8 6.9 31.8 6.6 31.8 6.9 35.3 6.7 34.9 6.8 8.6 4.1 6.7 3.8 7.9 3.4 4.3 2.7 57.9 5.0 62.8 4.3 51.4 4.5 54.1 5.8 31.8 4.8 27.7 4.5 38.0 4.5 39.2 5.7 10.3 3.2 9.5 2.9 10.6 3.0 6.7 2.6 52.4 5.5 57.6 5.2 58.9 4.7 60.6 5.1 39.8 5.4 34.2 4.9 32.3 4.6 34.0 5.0 7.9 2.8 8.2 2.9 8.9 2.5 5.4 2.1 47.6 8.9 57.7 7.0 55.0 7.2 57.1 7.8 37.6 8.3 35.3 6.7 34.0 6.8 37.6 7.8 14.8 6.6 7.0 3.9 11.0 4.9 5.4 3.7 50.5 12.6 56.8 12.1 54.0 13.5 67.9 11.6 35.0 11.6 34.7 11.7 40.8 13.5 28.1 11.1 14.5 12.8 8.5 5.8 5.2 4.0 4.0 4.0 f95% confidence interval. %ncludes persons aged 25 years and older. 216 Chptu 2 73baccn Use Amorlg U.S. Xllcial/Ethnic Minority Grmps 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % XI 7% KI R ASI % KI % XI - 61.2 3.0 61.4 4.3 65.6 4.2 65.3 4.8 62.5 5.2 30.0 2.8 33.3 3.9 28.5 4.1 27.2 4.3 29.7 4.8 8.7 1.8 5.3 1.7 6.0 2.1 7.5 3.2 7.8 2.7 57.5 4.4 55.7 6.8 63.3 6.2 64.1 7.0 57.6 7.4 31.7 4.0 39.0 6.3 29.2 5.9 25.2 5.8 32.5 7.2 10.8 2.8 5.3 2.4 7.4 3.4 10.7 5.6 9.9 4.5 65.7 3.5 67.5 4.9 68.4 5.8 66.7 5.5 69.7 9.7 28.0 3.4 27.3 4.5 27.5 5.7 29.8 5.5 22.1 8.2 6.2 1.9 5.2 2.0 4.1 2.2 3.5 1.7 8.2 6.0 66.9 4.6 68.5 6.6 70.6 7.9 71.5 7.3 68.3 8.5 27.3 4.4 27.7 6.5 22.8 7.0 22.3 7.0 24.4 8.1 5.7 2.5 3.8 2.1 6.6 3.8 6.2 3.1 7.2 4.4 56.7 4.4 59.0 6.0 62.2 6.0 60.6 7.3 57.2 7.3 32.7 4.0 34.9 5.7 31.2 6.1 31.1 6.4 33.5 7.0 10.7 2.8 6.1 2.7 6.6 3.2 8.4 5.8 9.4 4.2 60.0 6.8 54.3 8.8 64.6 10.3 66.2 9.6 67.1 9.1 29.3 6.5 39.8 8.5 32.0 10.4 26.2 8.4 28.4 8.5 10.7 4.3 5.9 3.9 3.4 3.6 7.6 6.6 4.5 3.7 60.0 5.2 56.2 8.2 59.4 8.1 59.3 8.7 52.3 8.6 28.7 4.8 36.6 8.0 30.9 8.2 32.0 7.9 33.0 8.4 11.3 3.5 7.2 3.4 9.7 5.0 8.6 6.1 14.8 6.8 57.6 4.9 61.3 6.1 64.6 6.9 63.9 8.3 64.1 7.9 35.5 4.8 34.4 5.8 32.1 6.7 28.8 7.2 29.5 7.2 6.9 2.2 4.3 2.4 3.3 2.7 7.2 6.6 6.4 4.1 63.8 7.7 62.5 9.2 64.4 10.3 66.9 11.6 58.8 11.7 28.2 7.4 32.1 9.1 29.8 9.8 27.1 11.3 37.6 11.5 8.1 4.2 5.4 4.0 5.9 4.8 6.0 4.1 3.6 2.8 62.4 13.2 72.5 12.6 78.3 17.4 73.3 17.8 83.0 11.1 22.1 10.8 21.3 11.2 19.4 17.3 26.7 17.8 12.1 9.7 15.6 11.7 6.1 6.8 2.3 3.6 0.0 0.0 4.9 6.0 Patterns of Tobacco Use 117 Table 49. Percentage of adult African American ever smokers who have quit,+ overall and by gender, age, and education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 Characteristic 1965 1966 1970 1974 % KIS % KI % KI % WI Total 15.5 1.7 14.2 1.7 20.6 1.5 19.7 2.4 Gender Men Women 16.1 2.2 15.5 2.2 22.2 2.0 21.7 3.6 14.5 2.7 12.3 2.4 18.4 2.1 17.4 2.9 Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 8.3 2.0 7.2 1.8 12.8 1.8 13.0 3.9 16.7 2.6 14.0 2.4 21.1 2.0 16.9 3.3 29.3 5.2 32.4 5.4 37.4 3.6 38.1 5.8 Education9 Less than high school High school Some college College NA NA 17.5 2.3 23.2 2.1 23.3 3.5 18.2' 2.1 11.2 3.5 19.4 3.7 17.4 4.7 NA NA 12.8 6.5 24.2 6.8 33.2 11.8 13.2' 5.7 19.9 8.6 33.9 9.9 20.4 9.9 1985 1987 1988 1990 Characteristic % KI % 33 % XI % %I Total 31.3 2.4 31.1 2.4 32.5 2.1 39.0 2.6 Gender Men Women 34.4 3.6 32.9 3.6 34.9 3.1 39.5 3.4 27.9 3.3 29.0 2.7 29.7 3.0 38.4 3.5 Age (years) 18-34 35-54 255 21.1 3.5 18.3 3.1 19.2 3.1 24.8 3.9 30.6 3.7 31.2 3.7 34.9 3.7 39.1 3.8 48.5 4.6 50.1 4.5 48.3 4.1 58.3 4.6 Education? Less than high school High school Some college College 32.8 3.6 34.2 3.7 35.8 3.4 40.4 4.4 30.8 4.4 27.0 3.7 27.6 3.5 35.7 3.9 36.6 6.6 35.8 5 5 37.3 5.8 43.8 6.5 37.4 8.7 49.9 ii2 50.4 8.3 51.4 8.2 *Data collected before 1978 do not distinguish between African Americans of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic African Americans; these data exclude those African Americans who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. The prevalence of cessation is the percentage of ever smokers who are former smokers. Former smokers are those who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they were not smoking. `The 1976 and 1977 surveys collected data only for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and 1977 were statistically adjusted to produce estimates for the total population, males, and females that approximate those for African Americans aged 18 years and older. Estimates for persons in the 18-34 year old age category were statistically adjusted to produce estimates that approximate those for African Americans aged 18-34 years old. 11 a Cirtlpter 2 Tohncco Use A1710rzg U.S. Rncicll/Efhnic Minority Groups 1976+ 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 7r KI % kc1 `?r ASI 7i XI % ?CI % KI 24.3 2.5 22.7 2.5 26.2 4.1 26.7 2.7 27.5 3.4 28.0 2.9 26.7 3.4 26.4 4.4 28.L5 6.4 28.7 3.8 29.2 4.9 32.0 4.3 21.6 3.7 18.7 3.0 23.6 4.8 24.4 3.7 25.5 4.9 23.4 3.7 13.8 3.1 14.3 3.1 17.9 5.6 18.4 4.0 16.9 4.7 18.8 3.9 24.0 4.7 23.0 4.2 27.3 6.0 26.5 4.9 31.1 7.2 27.7 4.8 13.4 6.1 37.4 6.2 41.6 10.8 42.8 6.1 41.7 10.0 44.6 6.4 30.0 3.5 26.9 3.4 29.7 6.1 33.1 4.8 34.7 7.3 32.4 5.1 23.2 4.9 20.9 1.9 25.3 5.9 25.4 4.2 21.3 9.3 25.4 5.3 23.7 9.5 26.7 8.3 27.9 13.2 32.7 10.6 37.2 12.9 32.3 9.0 23.9 13.5 25.3 10.9 20.0 16.2 26.8 9.5 41.9 12.7 36.4 11.8 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % kC1 7c KI % KI % KI 33.4 2.6 36.4 3.3 37.8 3.4 34.7 3.5 36.1 3.9 34.2 3.6 40.1 5.2 37.9 4.8 34.1 5.3 35.9 5.3 32.4 3.2 31.9 4.0 37.6 4.8 35.3 4.3 36.4 5.3 17.2 3.6 23.9 7.2 23.3 5.8 16.7 5.6 22.7 6.2 31.8 3.3 31.3 4.5 35.5 5.1 34.1 5.3 32.1 5.9 56.4 5.2 57.4 5.4 56.0 6.7 53.8 6.2 55.6 6.1 35.8 4.5 38.9 5.6 41.2 6.1 34.5 5.6 39.3 5.9 29.4 3.4 33.5 5.8 33.3 5.4 32.3 6.2 30.8 6.3 33.0 5.5 37.7 7.6 40.3 7.7 37.6 8.7 37.0 9.2 51.2 9.1 43.9 11.8 55.1 12.2 50.3 13.0 51.7 11.3 t95% confidence interval. *Includes persons aged 25 years and older. `Levels presented for 1965 are for persons who had a high school education or less and persons who attended some college or were college graduates. NA = data not available. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. Table 50. Percentage of African American women of reproductive age who reported being current cigarette smokers,* overall and by education, National Health Interview Surveys, United States, 1965-1995 Characteristic 1965 1966 1970 1974 o/c -1% 77c KI % KI % XI Total 42.9 2.9 Education_ Less than high school High school Some college College NA NA 45.0~ 4.0 NA NA 44.7" 9.6 1985 Characteristic 7% &CI 42.6 2.9 38.6 3.1 41.1 3.5 48.1 4.7 45.4 4.6 47.1 7.7 45.9 6.7 38.9 5.4 45.4 6.4 49.6 11.7 36.6 10.4 25.6 12.6 42.9 10.9 41.2 9.2 52.7 13.3 1987 1988 1990 % 3X1 % ?CI YO &CI Total 34.0 2.8 31.4 2.5 29.8 2.4 22.7 2.1 Educations Less than high school 54.3 6.8 High school 36.9 4.9 Some college 34.0 7.1 College 21.3 7.3 49.1 6.0 47.2 6.1 38.2 6.8 35.8 4.3 33.2 4.1 30.7 4.3 32.4 5.6 28.9 5.0 21.2 4.1 19.7 6.5 20.2 6.0 14.9 5.8 *Data collected before 1978 do not distinguish between African Americans of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic African Americans; these data exclude those African Americans who indicated they were of Hispanic origin. For 19651991, current cigarette smokers include women aged 1844 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked. For 1992-1995, current smokers include women aged 18-44 years who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked every day or on some days, Yhbacco USC Awzo~g U.S. Racinl/Etknic Minority Groups 1976+ 1977+ 1978 1979 1980 1983 YO AXI % kc1 % KI % KI % KI YO KI 38.8 4.2 41.7 4.0 36.4 6.3 35.2 3.0 34.6 5.4 34.3 3.4 45.3 7.1 44.0 9.0 41.5 10.3 43.2 8.9 35.7 12.9 49.6 8.9 39.1 7.3 49.3 7.6 36.4 7.7 34.5 6.8 40.0 10.0 36.5 6.2 46.0 9.6 41.4 10.5 53.0 15.3 33.2 9.7 30.5 11.8 29.3 8.4 35.5 15.4 36.6 15.1 45.9 19.2 36.2 10.3 31.0 17.4 22.5 9.2 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 % L-G % kC1 YC XI YC ASI % AC1 28.1 2.4 24.5 2.9 23.1 2.9 22.9 1.8 23.8 3.9 50.4 6.1 45.9 10.0 45.6 9.4 43.6 9.4 49.6 12.3 32.4 4.0 29.8 5.2 30.2 5.5 26.1 5.2 30.6 6.9 31.5 5.6 26.1 6.7 26.3 6.5 27.4 8.2 24.9 7.6 19.8 6.6 18.5 8.2 8.2 6.0 8.0 5.7 13.6 7.9 `The 1976 and 1977 surveys collected data onlv for persons aged 20 years and older. The data for 1976 and , 1977 were statistically adjusted to produce estimates that approximate those for African American women aged 18-44 years. i95'"c confidence interval. $Includes persons aged 25 years and older. `Levels presented for 1965 are for persons who had a high school education or less and persons who attended some college or were college graduates. NA = data not available. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965-1995. Pnttrrns of Tobacco Use 321 Appendix 5. Validation of the Retrospective Assessment of Smoking Prevalence Because the method of computing smoking prevalences retrospectively is inherent in the birth co- hort analyses described in this chapter, comparability of these estimates with accepted cross-sectional estimates was examined. At least two factors contrib- ute to the observed difference between retrospective and cross-sectional estimates of smoking prevalence: how a former smoker is defined and differences in mor- tality between smokers and nonsmokers (differential mortality). Retrospective estimates will be greater than cross-sectional ones because they are based on the age at which a smoker quits wm m~df~~nll. However, cross- sectional estimates, using the accepted definition of a former smoker (a person who has ever smoked 100 cigarettes but does not smoke UUXJ), classify ever smok- ers who are not currently smoking as quitters, even though many will relapse several times before finally quitting. Differential mortality results in retrospective estimates smaller than cross-sectional ones because smokers are less likely than others to survive and re- port their smoking history. This factor affects only the older birth cohorts (Harris 1983). Retrospective estimates of smoking prevalence were assessed by comparing them with smoking prevalence estimates from the NHISs from 1965 through 1988 and from Gallup surveys from 1944 through 1988. The NHIS and Gallup surveys both sample adults only; thus, for the comparison, retro- spective prevalences computed for each year included only respondents aged 18 years and oIder in that cal- endar year. Sample sizes for the birth cohorts in- cluded in this analysis varied widely (Table 51) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982-1984 [HHANES], and 1987 and 1988 combined). When this methodology was used to estimate smoking prevalences retrospectively for the national Table 51. Sample sizes for birth cohorts, by gender, race/ethnicity, and education," National Health Interview Surveys, 1978-1980,1987 and 1988 combined, and Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1982-1984 Men Women African American Hispanic African American Hispanic Birth Cohort HS HS HS HS 1908-1917 401 96 142 33 601 185 229 30 1918-1927 494 222 267 111 683 444 376 113 1928-1937 370 387 387 178 531 638 508 233 1938-1947 292 622 266 226 457 1,013 392 277 1948-1957 277 1,066 322 375 555 2,006 417 462 1958-1967+ 175 755 180 255 415 1,510 224 319 *Education was identified as either ~12 years of school completed (HS). `The smoking p ex erience of this cohort is still incomplete. Source: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1978, 1979,1980,1982-l 984 (Cancer Control Supplement and Epidemiology Supplement), and 1987 and 1988 combined. Tobn~co Use Among U.S. Racid/Etknic Minority Groups samples of the combined 1978, 1979, 1980, 1987, and 1988 NHISs, the prevalence of smoking in the U.S. population was estimated at approximately 10 percent in 1910, and it gradually increased before peaking in 1960 at approximately 50 percent (Figure 16). The prevalence then declined gradually to 28 percent in 1988. Data from successive Gallup polls administered since 1944 show a somewhat lower smoking preva- lence than do retrospective estimates, especially be- tween 1956 and 1970. Both the NHIS and the Gallup poll estimates follow a similar trend. For most years, retrospective estimates are slightly higher than those estimated from cross-sectional surveys (Table 52) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982-1984 [HHANES], and 1987 and 1988 combined). In addition, the estimate for the 1955 CPS (37.6 per- cent) is slightly lower than that estimated from the ret- rospective NHIS estimates (Figure 16). These findings are probably accounted for by the surveys' differing definitions of former smoker. The overall agreement of the retrospective prevalences with cross-sectional NHIS and Gallup poll data supports the validity of the prevalence estimates among successive birth cohorts for the population sub- groups presented in this chapter. Figure 16. Comparison of smoking prevalence estimates from selected U.S. surveys, 1910-1993 80 60 20 10 111,. Gallup polls National Health Interview Surve s FL? (NH1 s) Current Population Survey (CPS) Reconstructed NHISs 1950 Year Sources: Reconstructed estimates for 1910-1988 from the 1987-1988 combined NHISs (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHS], public use data tapes, 1987-1988); 1944-1991 Gallup polls (Thomas and Larsen 1993); 1955 CPS (USDHHS 1988); and 1965-1991 NHISs (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1965-1991). Pntterns of Tobacco Use 123 Surgeon Gem~l's Report Table 52. Comparison of current smoking prevalence* (%) between reconstructed estimates from National Health Interview Surveys (NHISs), 1987 and 1988 combined, NHIS cross-sectional survey estimates, and Gallup poll estimates Year Reconstructed NHISs Cross-sectional NHISs Estimate Estimate Difference+ Gallup Polls Estimate Difference+ 1944 42.7 NA 1949 45.4 NA 1954 46.7 NA 1957 46.7 NA 1965 45.8 42.4 1966 45.3 42.6 1969 43.2 NA 1970 42.7 37.4 1971 42.3 NA 1972 41.5 NA 1974 40.8 37.1 1976 39.9 36.4 1977 39.2 36.0 1978 38.5 34.1 1979 38.0 33.5 1980 37.4 33.2 1981 36.7 NA 1983 34.4 32.1 1985 32.1 30.1 1986 30.5 NA 1987 29.2 28.8 1988 28.2 28.1 NA NA NA NA -3.4 -2.7 NA -5.3 NA NA -3.7 -3.5 -3.2 4.4 4.5 4.2 NA -2.3 -2.0 NA -0.4 -0.1 41 -1.7 44 -1.4 45 -1.7 42 4.7 NA NA NA NA 40 -3.2 NA NA 42 -0.3 43 +1.5 40 -0.8 NA NA 38 -1.2 36 -2.5 NA NA NA NA 35 -1.7 38 +3.6 35 +2.9 31 +0.5 30 +0.8 32 +3.8 *In the NHIS, current smokers are persons who reported smoking at least 100 cigarettes in their lives and who reported at the time of survey that they currently smoked; in the Gallup poll, current smokers are persons who reported at the time of poll that they had smoked any cigarettes in the past week. +Difference between the survev estimate and the reconstructed prevalence estimate. ' NA = data not available. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1965,1966,1970,1974, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979,1980,1983,1985, and 1987 and 1988 combined; Gallup and Newport 1990. 124 Chpter 2 Tnbncco Use Amor7~ U.S. RacinllEthnic Minority Groqs References Andreski I', Breslau N. Smoking and nicotine dependence in young adults: differences between blacks and whites. Drus nj7d Alcol7ol Dependwcc 1993; 32(2):11-925. Austin GA, Prendergast ML, Lee H. S7tbstnwcT Ab71se Among Asia17 Americnn Yozrth: Prmwfim Rrscvrh Up- cl&e 1989;5(Winter):l-29. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Mor7itori77g the Futlm: Qucstionmire RLY~JOIISLY from the Notion's High School Serziors, 7976. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1980a. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Morritorilr~q th.? Future: Questiomnirr Respm7ws,fro??r the %tior?`.s High Sc17001 Seniors, 1978. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1980b. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Morlitorirrcy tire Future: Questionnaire Resp7se.s from the N(7tit~n's High School Se77iors, 1980. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1981. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Mmitoring the Future: Quesfio77nnire Resyomes~frot7r fl7e Notiojz's Higl7 Scl7001 Sel7iors, 1982. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1984. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Modnriq the Future: Questio77naire Respo~7sesfrorn tl7e Nation's High Sclzool Seniors, 1984. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1985. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Monitoring tke Future: Questionnaire Responsesfuonz the Nafim's High School Seniors, 1986. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1987. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Mmiforil~g the Futzm: Questionl7nire Res,vomesfro7?7 the Nntio,7's High School Seniors, 1988. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1991a. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Monitoring th Future: Questionizairc Responses from tkeNntion's High Sclrnol Seniors, 1990. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1993a. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Monitoring the Future: Questio?rrmire Respolzsesfvom the Nation's High Scl7001 Ser7iors, 1992. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 199313. Bachman JG, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM. Monitoring tkc Flffrlre: Qrlesfionnnire Res[7orrsesfYom the Nation's High Scl7001 Scrriors, 1994. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1997. Bachman JG, Wallace JM Jr, O'Malley PM, Johnston LD, Kurth CL, Neighbors HW. Racial/ethnic differ- ences in smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among American high school seniors, 1976-89. Americm Jaw- unl of Pzddic Health 1991b;81(3):372-7. Backinger CL, Bruerd B, Kinney MB, Szpunar SM. Knowledge, intent to use, and use of smokeless tobacco among sixth grade schoolchildren in six selected U.S. sites. Public Health Reporfs 1993;108(5):63742. Bauman KE, Ennett SE. Tobacco use by black and white adolescents: the validity of self-reports. American Jour- t7nl of Public Health 1994;84(3):394-8. Bauman KE, Koch GG, Fisher LA, Bryan ES. Use of smokeless tobacco by age, race, and gender in ten stan- dard metropolitan statistical areas of the Southeast United States. In: National Cancer Institute. Smokeless Tobacco Use in fke United States. National Cancer Insti- tute Monograph No. 8. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Insti- tute, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Smok- ing, Tobacco, and Cancer Program. NIH Publication No. 89-3055, 1989:35-7. Benowitz NL, Perez-Stable E, Herrera B, Jacob I! Afri- can American-Caucasian differences in nicotine and cotinine metabolism [abstractl. Clinical Pharmacology flr7d Tl7erqmtics 1995;57(2):159. Pafterm qf Tobacco Use 125 Blaisdell RK. The health status of the Kanaka Maoli. Asian American and Pacific lslauder ]oumal of Health 1993;1(2):116-60. Blum RW, Harmon B, Harris L, Bergeisen L, Resnick MD. American Indian-Alaska Native youth health. Iournal of the American Medical Association 1992;267 (12):1637-44. Bruerd B. Smokeless tobacco use among Native American children. Public Health Reports 1990;105 (2):196-201. Burns D, Pierce JI? Tobacco Use in California, 1990-I 991. Sacramento (CA): California Department of Health Services, 1992. Camp DE, Klesges RC, Relyea G. The relationship be- tween body weight concerns and adolescent smoking. Health Psyclzolo~y 1993;12(1):24-32. Centers for Disease Control. Oneida Indian Natiun of New York Health Needs Assessment 2990. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1990. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among reproductive-aged women-Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1989. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1991a;40(42):719-23. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among youth-United States, 1989. Morbidity n77d Mortality Weekly Report 199113;40(41):712-5. Centers for Disease Control. Differences in the age of smoking initiation between blacks and whites- United States. Morbidity n77d Mortality Weekly Rqx>rt 1991c;40(44):754-7. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among American Indians and Alaskan Natives-Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 1987-1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1992a;41(45):861-3. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among Chinese, Vietnamese, and Hispanics-California, 1989-l 991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 199213;41(20):362-7. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among Southeast Asian immigrants-Washington State, 1989. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1992c;41(45): 854-61. Centers for Disease Control. Comparison of the cigarette brand preferences of adult and teenaged smokers-United States, 1989, and 10 U.S. communi- ties, 1988 and 1990. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1992d;41(10):169-73,179-81. Centers for Disease Control. Using Chronic Disease Data: A Handbook for Public Health Pracfitioners. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Pro- motion, Office of Surveillance and Analysis, 1992e. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking cessation during previous year among adults-United States, 1990 and 1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1993:42(26):504-7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Changes in the cigarette brand preferences of adolescent smokers-United States, 1989-1993. Morbidity and Mor- tality Weekly Report 1994a;43(32):577-81. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking among women of reproductive age-United States, 1987-l 992. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 199413;43(43):789-91, 797. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveil- lance for selected tobacco-use behaviors-United States, 1900-1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Rrport 1994c;43(SS-3):1-43. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoke- less tobacco use among American Indian women- Southeastern North Carolina, 1991. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1995;44(6):113-7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco use and usual source of cigarettes among high school students-United States, 1995. Morbidity and Morfality Weekhy Report 1996;45(20):413-8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behav- ioral Risk Factor Survey of Korean Americans- Alameda County, California, 1994. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1997a;46(33):774-7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigar smoking among teenagers-United States, Massachu- setts, and New York, 1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1997%;46(20):433-40. 126 Cl7apfrr 2 Tobarco Use Amozzg US. Racial,lEfhnic Minority Groups Chandra A. Health Aspects of Pregnancy and Child- birth: United States, 1982-88. Vital a?zd Health Statistics. Series 23, No. 18. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 95-1994,1995. Chen VW. Smoking and the health gap in minorities. Azrnals of Epidemiology 1993;3(2):159-64. Clark PI, Gautam S, Gerson LW. Effect of menthol ciga- rettes on biochemical markers of smoke exposure among black and white smokers. CIzesf 1996;110(5): 1194-B. Crawford FG, Mayer J, Santella RM, Cooper TB, Ottman R, Tsai WY, et al. Biomarkers of environmen- tal tobacco smoke in preschool children and their moth- ers. Jo~lr~znl oj tire Natiolzal Caucer Iizsfitzlfe 1994;86(18): 1398-402. Cummings KM, Giovino G, Mendicino AJ. Cigarette advertising and black-white differences in brand pref- erences. Pzzblic Health Reports 1987;102(6):698-701. Davis RL, Helgerson SD, Waller I? Smoking during pregnancy among Northwest Native Americans. Prlh- lit Health Reports 1992;107(1):66-9. Delgado JL, Johnson CL, Roy I, Trevirio FM. Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: Method- ological Considerations. Americarz [ournnl of Public Healfh 1990;8O(Suppl):6-10. Dusenbury L, Kerner JF, Baker E, Botvin G, James- Ortiz S, Zauber A. Predictors of smoking prevalence among New York Latin0 youth. Americarz Journal of Public Health 1992;82(1):55-8. Escobedo LG, Anda RF, Smith PF, Remington PL, Mast EE. Sociodemographic characteristics of cigarette smoking initiation in the United States: implications for smoking prevention policy. Jounzal of fhe American Medical Associatiozl 1990;264(12):1550-5. Escobedo LG, Peddicord JR Smoking prevalence in US birth cohorts: the influence of gender and education. American Journal of Public Health 1996;86(2):231-6. Escobedo LG, Remington PL. Birth cohort analysis of prevalence of cigarette smoking among Hispanics in the United States. Jotlrzzal of the American Medical Asso- ciation 1989;261(1):66-9. Escobedo LG, Remington PL, Anda RF. Long-term age-specific prevalence of cigarette smoking among Hispanics in the United States. Journal of Psychoacfive Drugs 1989a;21(3):307-18. Escobedo LG, Remington PL, Anda RF. Long-term secular trends in initiation of cigarette smoking among Hispanics in the United States. Public Health Reporfs 1989b;104(6):583-7. Escobedo LG, Zhu BP, Giovino GA, Eriksen MI? Edu- cational attainment and racial differences in cigarette smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1995; 87(20):1552-3. Etzel RA, Jones DB, Schlife CM, Lyke JR, Spierto FW, Middaugh JI? Passive smoking and tobacco chewing among Alaskan children: measuring saliva cotinine. /oz~rrzal of Smoking-Related Diseases 1992;3(2):161-5. Faulkner DL, Escobedo LG, Zhu BP, Chrismon JH, Merritt RK. Race and the incidence of cigarette smok- ing among adolescents in the United States. Jounzal of tlrc Nafiorzal Carzcer Institute 1996;88(16):1158-60. Fiore MC, Novotny TE, Pierce JP, Hatziandreu EJ, Pate1 KM, Davis RM. Trends in cigarette smoking in the United States: the changing influence of gender and race. Joz~rnnl of the American Medical Association 1989;261(1):49-55. Flay BR, Brannon BR, Johnson CA, Hansen WB, Ulene AL, Whitney-Saltiel DA, et al. The Television School and Family Smoking Prevention and Cessation Project. Preventive Medicine 1988;17(5):585-607. Floyd RL, Rimer BK, Giovino GA, Mullen I'D, Sullivan SE. A review of smoking in pregnancy: effects on preg- nancy outcomes and cessation efforts. Annual Review of Public Health 1993;14:379-411. Gallup G Jr, Newport F. Many Americans favor restric- tions on smoking in public places. The Gallup Poll Monthly 1990;298(July):19-27. Escobedo LG, Reddy M, DuRant RH. Relationship between cigarette smoking and health risk and prob- lem behaviors among US adolescents. Archives of Pcdi- atrics azzd Adolesccljf Medicine 1997;151(1):66-71. Patterns of Tobacco Use 127 Gentry EM, Kalsbeek WD, Hogelin GC, Jones JT, Gaines KL, Forman MR, et al. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveys: II. Design, methods, and estimates from combined state data. Amrricnn ]our~~al of Prezlen- fiue Medicine 1985;1(6):9-14. Goldberg HI, Warren CW, Oge LL, Friedman JS, Helgerson SD, Pepion DD, et al. Prevalence of behav- ioral risk factors in two American Indian populations in Montana. American Journal of Prezlenfiue Medicine 1991;7(3):155-60. Gong YL, Koplan JP, Feng W, Chen CHC, Zheng l', Harris JR. Cigarette Smoking in China: prevalence, characteristics, and attitudes in Minhang district. Journal of the Arnericrrn Medical Association 1995; 274(15):12324. Greenlund KJ, Johnson C, Wattigney W, Bao W, Webber LS, Berenson GS, et al. Trends in cigarette smoking among children in a southern community, 1976-1994: the Bogalusa Heart Study. Alrrrals of Epidemiology 1996;6(6):476-482. Guendelman S, Abrams B. Dietary, alcohol, and to- bacco intake among Mexican-American women of childbearing age: results from HANES data. Americnn Jourual of Health Promotion 1994;8(5):363-72. Harris JE. Cigarette smoking among successive birth cohorts of men and women in the United States dur- ing 1900-80. Journal ofthrNntionn1 Cawrr 1~1sfifute 1983; 71(3):473-9. Hawks BL. Smoking and smoking-related cancers among Asian and Pacific Islander Americans. In: Jones LA, editor. Minorities UJI~ Cancer. New York: Springer- Verlag, 1989:137-51. Haynes SG, Harvey C, Montes H, Nickens H, Cohen BH. VIII. Patterns of cigarette smoking among Hispanics in the United States: results from HHANES 1982-84. American Jozlrnnl of Public Health 1990;80 (Suppl):47-54. Hodge FS, Cummings S, Fredericks L, Kipnis P, Wil- liams M, Teehee K. Prevalence of smoking among adult American Indian clinic users in northern California. Prezlentiue Medicine 1995;24(5):441-6. Hunter SM, Croft JB, Burke GL, Parker FC, Webber LS, Berenson GS. Longitudinal patterns of cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco use in youth: the Bogalusa Heart Study. American Journal ofPublic Health 1986;76(2):193-5. Husten CG, McCarty MC, Giovino GA, Chrismon JH, Zhu B-P. Intermittent smokers: a descriptive analysis of persons who have never smoked daily. American Journal of Public Health 1998;88(1):86-9. Hymowitz N, Sexton M, Ockene J, Grandits G. Baseline factors associated with smoking cessation and relapse. Preventive Medicine 1991;20(5):590-601. Hymowitz N, Mouton C, Edkholdt H. Menthol ciga- rette smoking in African Americans and whites [let- ter]. Tobacco Control 1995;4(2):194-5. Jenkins CNH, McPhee SJ, Bird JA, Bonilla N-TH. Can- cer risks and prevention practices among Vietnamese refugees. Western Journal ofMedicine 1990;153(1):34-9. Jenkins CNH, Dai PX, Ngoc DH, Kinh HV, Hoang TT, Bales S, et al. Tobacco use in Vietnam: prevalence, pre- dictors, and the role of the transnational tobacco cor- porations. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997a;277(21):1726-31. Jenkins CNH, McPhee SJ, Le A, Pham GQ, Ha N-T, Stewart S. The effectiveness of a media-led interven- tion to reduce smoking among Vietnamese-American men. America12 Jollrnnl of Public Health 1997b;87(6): 1031-4. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Monitoring the Fufurr: Querfionnaire Responsesfiom the Nation's High School Seniors, 1977. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1980a. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Monitorillg the Futzlre: Quesfionnnire Responsesfiom theNotion's High School Serziors, 1979. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1980b. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Monitorin the Future: Questionnaire Responses from the Nation's High School Selziors, 1981. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1982. 228 Chqfer 2 Tobacco Use Amo17g U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Molfito?irlg tke Future: Questionmire Responses from the Nntion's Hi@ School Seniors, 1983. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1984. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Mo~~itori~~g fhe F74hre: Qzrrstio?zllaire Rrs,7~0~7~~~fro~~7 the Nntioll's Hicqk Srlzonl Srninrs, 1985. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1986. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Morzitori,zg tlre Future: Qrrrstiourraire Res~7o17ses~rov1 the Natiorl `s Hi$ Sclroc~l Serliors, 1987. Ann Arbor (MI): Survev Research Center, Institute for Social Research, Uniirersity of Michigan, 1991. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley P.M. MorlitouiJlg tke Flrtlrre: Qllcstiolrnnivc Rtyxwcs fm~r tkc Nntior~`s High School Seniors, 2989. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1992. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Moniforiq the Future: Questionnnirr RcsF'o"st~s,frolJz the Natiorl's Hi$l Sclrool Seniors, 1991. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1993a. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. Mouifori~~~ tke Future: Questionnaire Rcspomesfrotn the Natiou's Hish Scllool Seniors, 1993. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1995a. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O'Malley PM. MollitoriJ7g the Fufwe: Quesfionnaire Responses from the Nntio~7's High Schoo/ Seniors, 2995. Ann Arbor (MI): Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1997. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. Nntionnl Szrr- "cy Results 0)~ Drug Usefroln Monitoril7g the FlitlrrcT Stud!/, 1975-1992: Volume 1, Secondary School Students. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIH Publi- cation No. 93-3597, 1993b. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. Nntional Sur- wy Results OJZ Drug Use from Monitoring the Future Study, 1475-I 994: Volume 1, Secondary Sclzool S ttlderz ts. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIH Publi- cation No. 95-4026.1995b. Johnston LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG. National Sur- zq Rrsulfs on Drum Usr from tke Monitoring the Fufure Study, 1975-Z 995: Vol11n7~ 1, Secondnry School Students. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIH Publi- cation No. 96-4139, 1996. Kimball EH, Goldberg HI, Oberle MW. Western Wask- i!lSfnrf Nnfiiv hwrican &h?uiorn~ Risk F&o?' SUJ'vey, 1989, Firln[ Reporf. Washington (DC): Chehalis, Hoh, Quinault, and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribes, Indian Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Univer- sity of Washington School of Public Health and Com- munity Medicine, reprinted by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, 1990. Klatsky AL, Armstrong MA. Cardiovascular risk fac- tors among Asian Americans living in northern Cali- fornia. An7tyricn,l ,Iourml q/ P&lic Hpnlth 1991;81(11): 1423-8. Kleinman JC, Kopstein A. Smoking during pregnancy, 1967-80. i4mt~ricar7 Journal of Public Health 1987; 77(7):823-5. Knight JM, Eliopoulos C, Klein J, Greenwald M, Koren G. Passive smoking in children: racial differences in systemic exposure to cotinine by hair and urine analy- sis. Chest 1996;109(2):446-50. Koepke D, Flay BR, Johnson CA. Health behaviors in minority families: the case of cigarette smoking. Fam- ily md Community Health 1990;13(1):35-43. Kolbe LJ. An epidemiological surveillance system to monitor the prevalence of youth behaviors that most affect health. Health Education 1990;21(6):44-8. Kolbe LJ, Kann L, Collins JL. Overview of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Public Healtk Re- ports 1993;108(1 Suppl):2-10. Patterns of TCJ~WCCO Use 129 Kominski R, Adams A. Ed71~17fio77171 Atfl7i777771wl i77 tl7e LI17ifd Stntcs: Ml7vcl7 1993 n77d 1992. Washington (DC): US Government Printing Office. Current Population Reports, PZO-476,1994. Koong SL, Malison MD, Nakashima AK. A prevalence survey of behavioural risk factors in Taipei City, Tai- wan. IuferuL7fioui71 Journnl Of Epirfelniology 1990;19 (1):154-9. Kopstein AN, Roth PT. Drug Ab7m2 Ammg Rm%l/Efh- jlic Glozl~w. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1993. Lando HA, Johnson KM, Graham-Tomasi RI', McGovern PG, Solberg L. Urban Indians' smoking patterns and interest in quitting. PI~~J/~c Heolfh Reports 1992;107(3):340-4. Lefkowitz D, Underwood C. Pciuorlnl Her-rltlt Pmcfices: Findings fro777 fhr Surzy ofA77z~`~ic~77 177rlinr7s llrlif Alnskn Nnfizles. National Medical Expenditure Survey Re- search Findings 10. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. AHCI'R Publication No. 91-0034. 1991. Leonard B, Paisano R, Smith EM, Kileen MJ, Cobb N. IHS Tobacco Project. Tl7e IHS Primy C171.c Prc~zlidcr 1993;18(6):107-16. Li VC, Hu J-H, Zhou M, Zheng J. Behavioral aspects of cigarette smoking among industrial college men of Shanghai, China. Americn~7 ]071r7717/ elf Pflblic Hcaltlr 1988;78(12):1550-3. Liberatos I', Link BG, Kelsey JL. The measurement of social class in epidemiology. E~li[ft,rlrio/!)sii Rrlzlieic,s. Vol. 10. Baltimore (MD): The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, 1988:87-121. Lovato CY, Litrownik AJ, Elder J, Xuiiez-Liriano A, Suarez D, Talavera GA. Cigarette and alcohol use among migrant Hispanic adolescents. Family 0 Co777- 7nu!~ify Hen/f/z 1994;16(4):23-36. Lowry R, Kann L, Collins JL, Kolbe LJ. The effect of socioeconomic status on chronic disease risk behav- iors among US adolescents. ]o~rrrznl of fhr A177c~rl'mr7 Medical Associafio77 1996;276(10):792-7. Marcus AC, Crane LA, Shopland DR, Lynn WR. Use of smokeless tobacco in the United States: recent estimates from the Current Population Survey. In: National Can- cer Institute. Smokeless Tobacco Use in the United States. National Cancer Institute Monograph No. 8. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Preven- tion and Control, Smoking, Tobacco, and Cancer Pro- gram. NIH Publication No. 89-3055,1989:17-23. McIntosh H. Black teens not smoking in great num- bers. Iotlrnnl of the Nntio~zal Cancer Institute 1995; 87(8):564. McPhee SJ, Jenkins CNH, Anh L. Smoking Preuelrtion arzd Cemtim Among Viefmrnese irr Northern California: Finn/ Reporf. Sacramento (CA): Report submitted to the Tobacco Control Section, Department of Health Ser- vices, State of California, 1993. McPhee SJ, Jenkins CNH, Wong C, Fordham D, Lai KQ, Bird JA, Moskowitz JM. Smoking cessation inter- vention among Vietnamese Americans: a controlled trial. Tobnccn Confml 1995;4(Suppl 1):16S-24s. Mermelstein R, Robinson R, Ericksen M, Crosset L, Feldman S. Explanations of race and gender differences in teen tobacco use. Paper presented at the 124th an- nual meeting of the American Public Health Associa- tion, New York City, November 19, 1996. Montgomery LE, Carter-Pokras 0. Health status by social class and/or minority status: implications for environmental equity research. fiTsico/ogy arrd Irzdus- frk1 Health 1993;9(5):729-73. Moss AJ, Allen KF, Giovino GA, Mills SL. Recent Trends in Adolescent Smoking, Smoking-Uptake Cor- relates, and Expectations About the Future. Advance Dnfn. No. 221. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 93-1250,1992. National Cancer Institute. Sfrafegies to Cof?frol Tobncco Use ill the Urlited States: A B/ueprinf for Public Health Acfiorl irl tlw 1990's. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 1. Bethesda (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, PubIic Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Insti- tute. NIH Publication No. 92-3316, 1991. National Center for Health Statistics. Health Interview Survey Procedure, 1957-1974. Vitnl omf Henlth Stntis- tics. Series 1, No. 11. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Ser- vice, Health Resources Administration, National Cen- ter for Health Statistics. DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 75-1311,1975. National Center for Health Statistics. The National Health Interview Survey Design, 1973-84, and Proce- dures, 1975-83. Vital nmf Hmlfk Statistics. Series 1, No. 18. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Cen- ter for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 85-1320,1985a. National Center for Health Statistics. Plan and Opera- tion of the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examina- tion Survey, 1982-84. Vifn1 n~n-l Hea/tk Sfl7ti~fics. Series 1, No. 19. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 85-1321,1985b. National Center for Health Statistics. Design and Esti- mation for the National Health Interview Survrey, 1985- 94. Vifnl anii HenIfk Sfnfisfics. Series 2, No. 110. Hyattsville (MD): US Department of Health and Hu- man Services, Public Health Serlpice, National Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 89- 13841989. National Institute on Drug Abuse. Swnmary Tddes: Annlmlizeil Esfimtes from the Nntiod Prepancy and Hralfk Surwy. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1994. Navarro AM. Cigarette smoking among adult Latinos: the California Tobacco Baseline Survey. Annnls of Be- hwiorol Mcdiciw 1996;18(4)238-45. Nelson DE, Giovino GA, Shopland DR, Mowery PD, Mills SL, Eriksen Ml? Trends in cigarette smoking among US adolescents, 1974 through 1991. American ~mrm7~ of Pddic Henltk 1995;85(1):34-40. Novotny TE, Pierce JP, Fiore MC, Davis RM. Smoke- less tobacco use in the United States: the Adult Use of Tobacco Surveys. In: National Cancer Institute. Smoke- 1~5s Z~IXX-CO Use iti tlzr Ulliteri Stoles. National Cancer Institute Monograph No. 8. Bethesda (MD): US De- partment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Can- cer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention and Con- trol, Smoking, Tobacco, and Cancer Program. NIH Publication No. 89-3055, 1989:25-B. Novotny TE, Warner KE, Kendrick JS, Remington PL. Smoking by blacks and whites: socioeconomic and demographic differences. Americnrz ~ourtml of Public Hmltk 1988;78(9):1187-9. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance Report on New Data from the 1989 Birth Certificate. Monfkly Vifd Sfofisfics Rrporf 1992;40(12 Suppl). Overpeck MD, Moss AJ. Children's Exposure to Envi- ronmental Cigarette Smoke Before and After Birth: Health of Our Nation's Children, United States, 1988. Acimmx Dnfn. No. 202. Hyattsville (MD): US Depart- National Center for Health Statistics. Advance Report ment of Health and Human Services, Public Health of Maternal and Infant Health Data from the Birth Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center Certificate, 1990. Monthly Vital Sfofisfics RL>yort for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 91- 1993;42(2 Suppl). 1250,199l. National Center for Health Statistics. Advance Report of Maternal and Infant Health Data from the Birth Certificate, 1991. Montlzl?/ Vital Stnfisfics Rcpnrf 1994;42(11 Suppl). National Center for Health Statistics. Hmlfk, Uuifed States, 1995. Hyattsville (MD): Public Health Service. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 961232,1996. I'amuk ER, Mosher WD. Health Aspects of Pregnancy and Childbirth: United States, 1982. Vital and Health Stntistics. Series 23, No. 16. Hyattsville (MD): US De- partment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 89- 1992,1992. Parnell K, Sargent R, Thompson SH, Duhe SF, Valois RF, Kemper RC. Black and white adolescent females' perceptions of ideal body size. Juun~nl of School Henltk 1996;66(3):112-8. Pattishall EN, Strope GL, Etzel RA, Helms RW, Haley NJ, Denny FW. Serum cotinine as a measure of tobacco smoke exposure in children. Americarz lournal of Dis- eases of Childrelr 1985;139(11):11074. Pierce JP, Fiore MC, Novotny TE, Hatziandreu EJ, Davis RM. Trends in cigarette smoking in the United States: educational differences are increasing. Jozrrna/ of the Americalr Medical Association 1989;261(1):56-60. Pierce JP, Gilpin E, Burns DM, Whalen E, Rosbrook B, Shopland D, et al. Does tobacco advertising target young people to start smoking? evidence from Cali- fornia. ]ollrrlal offhe American Medical Association 1991a; 266(22):3154-S. Pierce JP, Naquin M, Gilpin E, Giovino G, Mills S, Marcus S. Smoking initiation in the United States: a role for worksite and college smoking bans. {ouvnnl of the Nntiorinl Caficer lustifute 1991b;83(14):1009-13. Pirkle JL, Flegal KM, Bernert JT, Brody DJ, Etzel RA, Maurer KR. Exposure of the U.S. population to envi- ronmental tobacco smoke: the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1991. ]oilv- nal of the American Medical Associatioll 1996;275(16): 1233-40. Pletsch PK. Prevalence of cigarette smoking in His- panic women of childbearing age. NrrrsinS Research 1991;40(2):103-6. Remington PL, Smith MY, Williamson DF, Anda RF, Gentry EM, Hogelin GC. Design, characteristics, and usefulness of state-based behavioral risk factor surveil- lance: 1981-87. Public Health Reports 1988;103(4): 366-75. Roscoe RJ, Deddens JA, Salvan A, Schnorr TM. Mor- tality among Navajo uranium miners. Americarr /our- f1a1 of Public Health 1995;85(4):535-40. Rouse BA. Epidemiology of smokeless tobacco use: a national study. In: National Cancer Institute. SmJkP less Tobacco Use in the United States. National Cancer Institute Monograph No. 8. Bethesda (MD): US De- partment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Smoking, Tobacco, and Cancer Program. NIH Publication No. 89-3055, 1989: 29-33. Royce JM, Hymowitz N, Corbett K, Hartwell TD, Orlandi MA, for the COMMIT Research Group. Smok- ing cessation factors among African Americans and whites. America)? ]otrr?znl of Public Health 1993;83(2): 220-6. Samet JM, Howard CA, Coultas DB, Skipper BJ. Ac- culturation, education, and income as determinants of cigarette smoking in New Mexico Hispanics. Cancer E[Jidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 1992;1(3): 235-40. Shah BV. SESUDAAN: Standard Errors Program for Com- puting of Standardized Rafes from Sample Survey Data. Research Triangle Park (NC): Research Triangle Insti- tute, 1981. Shah BV, Barnwell BG, Hunt PN, LaVange LM. SUDAAN: Professional Software for Survey Data Analy- sis (SUDAAN User's Mawal, Release 5.50). Research Triangle Park (NC): Research Triangle Institute, 1991. Sheridan DP, Hornung CA, McCutcheon EP, Wheeler FC. Demographic and educational differences in smok- ing in a tobacco-growing state. American Journal of Pre- iwztive Medicirle 1993;9(3):155-9. Shopland DR, Hartman AM, Gibson JT, Mueller MD, Kessler LG, Lynn WR. Cigarette smoking among U.S. adults by state and region: estimates from the Current Population Survey. Iourual of the National Cancer Iusfi- futc 1996;88(23):1748-58. Smith KW, McGraw SA, Carrillo JE. Factors affecting cigarette smoking and intention to smoke among Puerto Rican-American high school students. Hispanic ~Ol~riIal c!f Behavioral Scietzces 1991;13(4):401-11. Sugarman JR, Brenneman G, LaRoque W, Warren CW, Goldberg HI. The urban American Indian oversample in the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Sur- vey. Plrblic Health ReFJorfs 1994;109(2):243-50. Sugarman JR, Warren CW, Oge L, Helgerson SD. Us- ing the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System to monitor year 2000 objectives among American Indi- ans. PlltJlic Health Reports 1992;107(4):449-56. Thomas RM, Larsen MD. Smoking prevalence, beliefs, and activities: by gender and other demographic indi- cators. Paper presented at the 1993 AAPOR Annual Convention, St. Charles, Illinois, May 1993. 132 Chapter 2 7i~bncr~~ Use, Among U.S. Racial/Eth~~ic Minority Groups Thornberry OT Jr, Massey JT. Trends in United States telephone coverage across time and subgroups. In: Groves RM, Biemer PI', Lyberg LE, Massey JT, Nicholls WL II, Waksberg J, editors. Tc~e$ollr Surmy M~f1xx1o- o,q/. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988:25-I9. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical Brief: Pho~~elcss ill America. Washington (DC): US Department of Com- merce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bu- reau of the Census. SB/94-16,1994. US Department of Health and Human Services. Tile Health Colzequenccs of Smoki~~~q for Womrn. A Rrpwt of the Sur~eo?~ General. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health, 1980. US Department of Health and Human Services. TIIIT Health Consc9zrencrs CJ~ Smokirzg: Cflrtlioinscllli7~. DI'soI~L'. A Report of tile .Sllrseo~~ Gcllcr~l. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 8450204, 1983. US Department of Health and Human Services. The He& Consequences 0jSmnking: Cnrmr and Chrc~~ric Lflns Disease in fhe Worky[ace. A Reprf off/w Szrrxeo/l Gc~rwrn~. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office on Snnking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 85-50207, 1985. US Department of Health and Human Services. Thr Heulfh Consequences qf Smoking: Nicofine Addictioil. A Report of the Slqeo~2 Gen~rnl. Rockville (MD): US De- partment of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 88-8406, 1988. US Department of Health and Human Services. Re- ducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 YcTars of Prog-ress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 89-8411,1989. US Department of Health and Human Services. The He&h Bwcfits of Smoking Cessation. A Report of the Sur- s'otl GnIeral. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Disease Pre- vention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 9@8416,1990a. 1;s Department of Health and Human Services. To&co Use iu 1986: Methods and Basic Trtbulntions from Adult Use [$ Tobflcco Sllrve?/. Rockville (MD): US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Chronic Dis- ease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publication No. (OM) 90- 20041990b. CS Department of Health and Human Services. Smok- i,rg ajzd HrJalth ill the Americas. A 1992 Report of the Sur- ~COIJ Gcvwol. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Pro- motion, Office on Smoking and Health. DHHS Publi- cation No. (CDC) 92-8419,1992. US Department of Health and Human Services. Pre- zle!zting Tobacco Use AJ?UJ?I~ Young People. A Report of the Surcyeon Ge)zera/. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Smoking and Health. A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington (DC): US Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office on Smoking and Health. DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 79-50066,1979. Vega WA, Gil AG, Zimmerman RS. Patterns of drug use among Cuban-American, African-American, and white non-Hispanic boys. American Journal of Public Health 1993;83(2):257-9. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Taffel SM, Mathews TJ, Clarke SC. Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1992. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 1994;43(5 Suppl). Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Taffel SM, Mathews TJ, Clarke SC. Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1993. Monthly Vital Statistics Report 1995;44(3 Suppl). Pnttcms of Tobacco Use 133 Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Mathews TJ, Clarke SC. Ad- vance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1994. Monthly Vital Statistics Rquorf 1996;44(11 Suppl). Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1995. Mollthly Vital Statis- tics Report 1997;45(11 Suppl). Wagenknecht LE, Burke GL, Perkins LL, Haley NJ, Friedman GD. Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels. American Journal ofPublic Health 1992;82( I ):33-6. Wagenknecht LE, Manolio TA, Sidney S, Burke GL, Haley NJ. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure as determined by cotinine in black and white young adults: the CARDIA study. Envirorzmental Research 1993;63(1):3946. Wallace JM Jr, Bachman JG. Explaining racial/ethnic differences in adolescent drug use: the impact of back- ground and lifestyle. Social Problems 1991;38(3):333-57. Wang S-Q, Yu J-J, Zhu B-P, Liu M, He G-Q. Cigarette smoking and its risk factors among senior high school students in Beijing, China, 1988. Tobacco Control 1994;(3):107-14. Welty TK, Lee ET, Yeh J, Cowan LD, Go 0, Fabsitz RR, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk factors among Ameri- can Indians: the Strong Heart Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 1995;142(3):269-87. Weng X-Z, Hong Z-G, Chen D-Y. Smoking prevalence in Chinese aged 15 and above. Chinese Medical Journal 1987;100(11):886-92. Wewers ME, Dhatt RK, Moeschberger ML, Guthrie RM, Kuun I', Chen MS. Misclassification of smoking status among Southeast Asian adult immigrants. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medi- cine 1995;152(6 Ptl):1917-21. Wiecha JM. Differences in patterns of tobacco use in Vietnamese, African-American, Hispanic, and Cauca- sian adolescents in Worcester, Massachusetts. Ameri- call Journal of Preventive Medicine 1996;12(1):29-37. Wills TA, Cleary SD. The validity of self-reports of smoking: analyses by race/ethnicity in a school sample of urban adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 1997;87(1):56-61, Zhu B-P, Liu M, Wang S-Q, He G-Q, Chen D-H, Shi JH, et al. Cigarette smoking among junior high school students in Beijing, China, 1988. International Journal of Epidemiology 1992;21(5):854-61. Warm Springs Confederated Tribes. Warm Springs CUP federated Tribes Behazlioral Risk Factor Survey, 1990. Warm Springs (OR): Warm Springs Confederated Tribes, Community Health Promotion Department, Human Services Branch, 1993. 134 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Health Consequences of Tobacco Use Among Four Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Introduction 137 Lung Cancer 137 African Americans 138 American Indians and Alaska Natives 143 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 1 J.5 Hispanics 147 Other Cancers 149 Cervical Cancer 252 Esophageal Cancer 2.53 Oral Cancer 153 Stomach Cancer 155 Urinary Bladder Cancer 156 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 158 African Americans 158 American Indians and Alaska Natives 158 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 159 Hispanics 159 Coronary Heart Disease 160 African Americans 160 American Indians and Alaska Natives 161 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 2 62 Hispanics 163 Cerebrovascular Disease 164 African Americans 165 American Indians and Alaska Natives 165 Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders 165 Hispanics 166 Smoking and Pregnancy 266 Studies of Low Birth Weight 167 Studies of Infant Mortality and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome 169 Health Problems Affecting Pregnant Women 171 Implications 172 Summary of Health Consequences from Active Cigarette Smoking 172 Effects of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke 172 Effects of Smokeless Tobacco Use 274 Nicotine Addiction and Racial/Ethnic Differences 175 Nature of Addiction 175 Pharmacologic Factors in Nicotine Addiction 175 Absorption, Distribution, and Elimination of Nicotine in the Body 175 Pharmacodynamics of Nicotine 2 76 Tolerance, Withdrawal, and Addictive Tobacco Use 178 Level of Addiction 179 Racial/Ethnic Differences in Nicotine Metabolites 179 Racial/Ethnic Differences in Self-Reported Nicotine Dependence 281 Racial/Ethnic Differences in Quitting Smoking 283 Addiction to Smokeless Tobacco 183 Conclusions 185 Appendix. Methodological Issues 185 Classification of Smoking Status 285 Classification of Race/Ethnicity 186 Classification of Health Outcomes 287 References 188 Tobacco Use Among U.S. Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups Introduction The fact that cigarette smoking causes cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and adverse pregnancy outcomes is well established (U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services [USDHHSI 1989b). Evidence of the relationship between smok- ing and lung cancer began to accumulate as early as the late 1930s (Ochsner and DeBakey 1939; U.S. De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare [USDHEW] 1964). In 1964, the first Surgeon General's report linking smoking to disease concluded that ciga- rette smoking was a cause of lung and laryngeal can- cers in men and a probable cause of lung cancer in women. In more recent reports, the Surgeon General has concluded that cigarette smoking causes 87 per- cent of lung cancer deaths, 30 percent of all cancer deaths, 82 percent of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) deaths, 21 percent of coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths, and 18 percent of deaths from stroke (USDHHS 1989b) as well as 21-39 percent of low-birth-weight births and 14 percent of preterm de- liveries (USDHHS 1980, 1989b). In addition, passive or involuntary smoking causes lung cancer in healthy nonsmokers and respiratory problems in young chil- dren (USDHHS 1986a; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1992). Despite this wealth of knowledge about the health consequences of smoking, few studies have Lung Cancer examined the relationship between tobacco use and known health effects among racial/ethnic groups in the United States. Moreover, few databases include information on sufficient numbers of persons from racial/ethnic groups to allow such analyses. Although sufficient data are often not available for these population subgroups, the objectives of this chapter are to assess the burden of smoking-related diseases among U.S. racial/ethnic groups, to examine racial/ethnic differences in tobacco-related morbidity and mortality when possible, and to review studies that have examined how the relationship between to- bacco use and selected health outcomes may differ among racial/ethnic groups. For many of the adverse health outcomes and diseases presented in this chap- ter, smoking is one of many contributing factors. The focus in this chapter is on the disease burden related to smoking among four U.S. racial/ethnic minority groups (African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Island- ers, and Hispanics); data on the contribution of cigarette smoking to any differences between groups are highlighted whenever available. A discussion of some relevant methodological issues is provided in the chapter appendix. The 1964 Surgeon General's report on smoking and health concluded that "Cigarette smoking is caus- ally related to lung cancer in men; the magnitude of the effect far outweighs all other factors. The data for women, though less extensive, point in the same di- rection" (USDHEW 1964). That conclusion was based on strong epidemiological evidence from case-control and cohort studies and supporting toxicological evi- dence. When reviewed against criteria for causality, the evidence was initially judged to be sufficient for men and a similar conclusion was subsequently reached for women (USDHHS 1980). Since the 1964 Surgeon General's report, voluminous evidence has accumulated about the relationship between smoking and lung cancer (USDHHS 1989b; Wu-Williams and Samet 1994). The epidemiological studies consistently indicate that the risk of lung cancer increases with the number of ciga- rettes smoked and with the length of time a person smokes. Furthermore, evidence shows that in com- parison with smokers of non-filtered cigarettes, smok- ers of filtered cigarettes have only slightly less risk of lung cancer (Wu-Williams and Samet 1994). Although a family history of lung cancer is associated with in- creased risk, the genetic basis for this association has not yet been determined (Economou et al. 1994). En- vironmental agents other than cigarette smoke, includ- ing certain occupational agents (Coultas and Samet Health Coilseqzlel7ccs 237 Suqeon General's Report 1992; Coultas 1994) and indoor and outdoor air pol- lutants (Samet 1993), also cause lung cancer. For ex- ample, synergism between smoking and radon and asbestos has been demonstrated in studies of worker groups (Saracci and Boffetta 1994). Because nearly all cases of lung cancer are attrib- utable to cigarette smoking, variations in lung cancer patterns between racial/ethnic groups most likely re- flect differences in smoking patterns. Whenever more detailed information is available, it is included in the appropriate sections that follow. African Americans The population-based cancer registries operated by the National Cancer Institute's (NC11 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program pro- vide cancer incidence data for several locations throughout the United States, including Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, and Utah and the met- ropolitan areas of Detroit, Atlanta, San Francisco/ Oakland, and Seattle/Puget Sound. SEER data show that African American men have had consistently higher lung cancer incidence rates than white men since the 1970s (Figure 1) (Kosary et al. 1995). (SEER data cover about 10 percent of the U.S. population and are used frequently to estimate national cancer rates and trends.) Between 1950 and 1960, age-adjusted death rates for malignant neoplasms of the respiratory system (composed primarily of deaths from lung can- cer) among African American men surpassed those among white men and have since remained higher, whereas death rates for African American women have remained fairly similar to those among white women, according to data from the National Vital Statistics System (Table 1) (National Center for Health Statistics [NCHSI 1997). Since 1990, respiratory cancer death rates declined substantially for African American men; among African American women, rates increased through 1990 and then leveled off. From 1992-1994, the age-adjusted death rate for cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (generally referred to as lung Figure 1. Incidence of cancer of the lung and bronchus, by race/ethnicity and gender, National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 1973-1994 10 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 Year of Diagnosis - African American men - a- n * * White men African American women - White women Note: Age-adjusted to the 1970 standard U.S. population. Sources: Adapted from Kosary et al. 1995: Ries et al. 1997. 338 Chapter 3 Tobacco Use Arnmg U.S. Racial/Efhnic Minority Group Table 1. Death rates uer 100,000 U.S. residents for malignant diseases of the respiratory system, by race/ ethnicity a& gender, United States, 1950-1995: selected years - Race/ethnicity and gender African American men All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude American Indian or Alaska Native men' All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude Asian American or Pacific Islander men5 All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude Hispanic men' All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude White men All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude African American women All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude American Indian or Alaska Native women' All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude Asian American or Pacific Islander women5 All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude Hispanic women' All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude White women All ages, age-adjusted All ages, crude 1950+ 1960+ 1970 1980 1985 1990 1992 1993 1994 1995 16.9 36.6 60.8 82.0 87.7 91.0 86.7 86.0 82.8 80.5 14.3 31.1 51.2 70.8 75.5 77.8 74.7 74.7 72.5 71.2 NA NA NA 23.2 28.4 29.7 31.7 31.0 31.1 32.7 NA NA NA 15.7 19.6 21.1 23.1 23.1 23.0 25.1 NA NA NA 27.6 26.9 26.8 27.4 28.4 28.0 25.8 NA NA NA 22.9 21.3 21.7 23.0 23.8 23.9 22.4 NA NA KA NA 24.0 27.7 24.4 25.1 24.8 25.2 NA NA NA NA 13.9 17.4 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.9 21.6 34.6 49.9 58.0 58.7 59.0 56.7 56.3 54.8 53.7 24.1 39.6 58.3 73.4 77.6 81.0 79.5 79.7 78.5 77.8 4.1 5.5 10.9 19.5 22.8 27.5 28.5 27.3 27.7 27.8 3.4 4.9 10.1 19.3 23.5 29.2 30.9 30.2 30.8 31.3 NA NA NA 8.1 11.1 13.5 15.5 16.1 17.7 16.4 NA NA NA 6.4 9.2 11.3 13.4 14.6 16.5 15.5 NA NA NA 9.5 9.2 11.3 11.1 11.7 11.2 13.0 NA NA NA 8.4 8.2 10.6 11.1 11.7 11.4 13.6 NA NA NA NA 6.7 8.7 8.4 8.2 8.5 8.2 5.2 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.7 7.5 4.6 5.1 5.4 6.4 z:: 10.1 13.1 18.2 22.7 26.5 27.4 27.6 27.7 27.9 26.5 34.8 43.4 46.2 47.3 47.9 48.9 - Note: Data in the table on African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and whites include persons of Hispanic and non-Hispanic origin. Conversely, in this table, the data on Hispanic origin may include persons of any race. *Age-adjusted to the 1940 U.S. standard population. Cause-of-death data are based on classifications from the then-current Internntio~~al Classification @Diseases (e.g., cause-of-death codes 160-165 for the Ninth Revision). Data for the 1980s are based on intercensal population estimates. `Includes deaths of nonresidents of the United States, tmterpretation of trends should consider that population estimates for American Indians and Alaska Natives increased by 45 percent between 1980 and 1990 (because of better enumeration techniques in 1990 and an _ increased tendency for people to denote themselves as American Indian in 1990). %terpretation of trends should consider that the Asian population in the United States more than doubled between 1980 and 1990, primarily because of immigration. `Because of incomplete data, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reports 1985 death certificate data on decedents of Hispanic origin for only 17 states and the District of Columbia. By 1990, data for 47 states and the District of Columbia were reported. NCHS estimates that the 1990 reporting area encompassed 99.6 percent of the U.S. Hispanic population. After 1992, only Oklahoma did not provide information on Hispanic origin. NA = data not available. Source: Adapted from National Center for Health Statistics 1997. i,,nzer) WFas highest for African American men (81.6 per I r)(),oOo population) (Table 2); the lung cancer death r,lte for African American women (27.2 per 100,000) ,,.db bimilar to that for white women (27.9 per 100,000) ,),,d ljigher than that for any other racial/ethnic group. .\mc,n~ African Americans in 1993, the four leading ic1Llse5 of cancer death were lung cancer (26.1 percent (,I ;1l1 cancer deaths), cancer of the colon and rectum ( 10.4 percent), prostate cancer (9.4 percent), and can- ik'T ()f the female breast (8.3 percent) (Parker et al. 1997). The higher lung cancer incidence and death rates ~,mo~~g African American men have not been fully ex- pl,lined. Two ecological analyses of population-based in ,lccounted for the differences in lung cancer be- t\\.ct'n white and African American men, whereas the ,luthors of the other paper (Devesa and Diamond 1983) pr~~posed that cigarette smoking and other environ- tnctntal correlates of socioeconomic status, such as dietary habits or occupational exposure, may have .licounted for their findings. Data from several National Health Interview `;url-cvs (NHISs) were used to conduct birth cohort ,~n,>lyll~~\~ et al. 1991; Shopland 1995). Older white men (tho5; born before 1915) experienced higher peak \nloking rates and slightly earlier ages of initiation th,ln older African American men. For persons born ,litc>r 1915, peak smoking rates and duration of smok- ing tor African American men were slightly higher than those> ior white men. In addition, Lvhite male smokers \\`c'rt' more likely than African American male smok- l'r\ to quit smoking in the 1950s (when the early ~it~tific studies on smoking and lung cancer were n~p~~rted); African American male cohorts born after IL) 15 thus experienced a greater cumulative exposure 10 cl$lrette smoke. Reflecting these trends in smok- Ills bc+avior, lung cancer mortality rates were initially ill&t>r for white men. The combination of less cessa- tl~)n, ljigher peak prevalence, and longer duration (`1 \moking in African American men after the 1940s Ilhc'l\' cl\plains the observation that mortality rates for -\trl~-cln American men began to exceed those for white 1111'1J Illttlr in the century (Shopland 1995). Lung cancer death rates have been much lower for women than for men (reflecting historically lower smoking prevalences) and have risen more slowly with age in the older birth cohorts. As rates for men began to decline in cohorts born after 1930, rates continued to rise among women, reflecting their slower adop- tion and increasing prevalence of cigarette smoking. African American and white women indicated simi- lar patterns of smoking initiation, maintenance, and quitting; lung cancer death rates for African Ameri- can and white women also have been similar (Tolley et al. 1991; Shopland 1995). These data are consistent with the interpretation that trends in smoking behav- ior are largely responsible for 20th century lung can- cer mortality patterns for African Americans and whites. Tolley and colleagues (1991) further suggested that lung cancer rates among African American men and women may be slightly higher than those for white men and women, even after considering differences in their smoking behaviors. One study (Harris et al. 1993) showed a higher lung cancer risk among African Americans compared with whites who had the same level of cumulative exposure to cigarette smoking. In this 20-year case- control study, 2,678 cases of lung cancer were identi- fied among white men, 238 cases among African American men, 1,394 cases among white women, and 113 among African American women; after adjusting the data for cumulative tar consumption and educa- tion, the researchers found that African Americans had a significantly higher risk of lung cancer. One limita- tion of this study is that it uses the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) estimates of tar yield to calcu- late cumulative tar consumption. The ETC's machines are set to parameters that have not changed for de- cades. Because humans smoke cigarettes differently than the machines used by the FTC, the validity of these measures has been called into question (NC1 1996a). In the Kaiser Permanente cohort study, the relative risks of lung cancer were approximately the same for African Americans and whites (Friedman et al. 1997). Dorgan and colleagues (1993) conducted a case-control study to assess race and gender differences in lung cancer, categorizing participants according to consumption of fruits and vegetables. Lung cancer risk was significantly increased for African Americans who currently smoked (compared with never smok- ers and former light smokers), regardless of the amount of vegetables consumed. These analyses were statisti- cally adjusted for gender, age, education, occupation, passive smoking, and study phase. In a recent population-based case-control study to compare the risks of lung cancer for African 73bncco USC Amo~~g U.S. Raczhl/Ethic Minority Groups Table 2. Age-adjusted death rates* for selected smoking-related causes of death, by race/ethnicity and gender, United States, 1992-1994 Disease Category UCD-9 code)+ African American Indian/ Asian American/ American Alaska Native Pacific Islander White Hispanic Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Cancer Lip, oral cavity, pharynx (140-l 49) 7.7 Esophagus (150) 11.4 Stomach (151) 9.5 Pancreas (157) 11.1 Larynx (161) 4.6 Trachea, bronchus, lung (162) 81.6 Cervix uteri (180) NA Bladder (188) 3.2 Kidney, other, unspecified urinary organs (189) 4.3 Cardiovascular diseases Coronary heart disease (410414) 138.3 Cerebrovascular disease (430438) 53.1 Respiratory diseases Bronchitis, emphysema (491492) 4.7 Chronic airway obstruction, not elsewhere classified (496) 17.6 1.8 2.6 1.0 3.3 1.0 3.0 1.2 2.4 0.5 3.0 3.2 0.5 2.7 0.5 4.4 0.9 2.8 0.4 4.1 4.9 2.6 8.9 5.1 3.9 1.7 6.2 3.1 8.1 3.4 3.0 5.5 3.9 7.3 5.2 5.1 3.8 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.4 1.3 0.2 27.2 33.5 18.4 27.9 11.4 54.9 27.9 23.1 7.7 5.7 NA 3.0 NA 2.5 NA 2.2 NA 3.2 1.6 1.2 0.5 1.5 0.6 3.9 1.1 1.8 0.6 2.0 4.4 2.3 1.8 0.8 4.1 1.9 3.1 1.3 85.0 100.4 71.7 36.2 132.5 62.9 82.7 43.9 40.6 23.9 45.9 21.1 1.9 9.0 29.3 22.4 26.3 22.6 22.7 16.3 1.6 2.8 2.9 0.9 6.2 3.8 2.4 6.6 14.2 7.9 2.6 20.4 12.2 8.2 0.9 3.7 *Per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 1940 U.S. standard population. Estimates for Hispanics exclude data from New Hampshire for 1992 and from Oklahoma for 1992-1994. +I&rrzntiolzal Clnssificntim of Discans~s, Ninth Rcz~isio~~, World Health Organization 1977. NA = data not available. Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, public use data tapes, 1992-1994; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1997. Americans and whites across categories of cigarette Surveillance System, a participant in the NCI's SEER smoking status, Schwartz and Swanson (1997) exam- Program. The analyses were stratified by gender and ined incident cases from the Occupational Cancer statistically adjusted for age, education, and cigarette Incidence Surveillance Study. This study operates in smoking behaviors. The overall risks of lung cancer conjunction with the Metropolitan Detroit Cancer (of all histological types) were similar for African Health Comrqzremes 142 Americans and whites. Thus, race did not appear to be an independent predictor of lung cancer in the population as a whole. Howelrer, African Americans were more likely than whites to have developed squa- mous cell carcinoma. Additionally, African American men aged 40-54 years were 24 times more likely than white men of the same ages to have developed lung cancer (of several histological types). The authors con- cluded that the increased risks among younger African Americans may suggest a greater degree of susceptibility to lung carcinogens or greater exposure to other unidentified carcinogens and they called for further research on the topic. Investigators have postulated that the more frequent smoking of menthol cigarettes by African Americans, compared with whites, contributes to their increased rate of lung cancer (Harris et al. 1993). In a recent experimental study of 12 persons after the amount of menthol injected into experimental ciga- rettes was increased, the amount of carbon monoxide exhaled by African American smokers also increased (Miller et al. 1994). In a comparison of smoking be- havior associated with mentholated cigarettes and regular cigarettes among 29 subjects, McCarthy and colleagues (1995) found higher mean puff volume and higher puff frequency after participants smoked regu- lar cigarettes than after they smoked mentholated cigarettes; however, no differences in mean expired carbon monoxide levels were found. A\Tailable data suggest that mentholated cigarettes are not smoked more intensely than regular cigarettes (Jarlik et al. 1994; Miller et al. 1994; McCarthy et al. 1995; Ahijevych et al. 1996). Thus, mentholated cigarettes may pro- mote lung permeability and diffusibility of smoke con- stituents (Jarvik et al. 1994; McCarthy et al. 1995; Clark et al. 1996a). Recent studies have examined the possible role of genetics in determining the risk of lung cancer among African Americans. Crofts and colleagues (1993) identified a restriction fragment length polymor- phism (RFLP) in the gene (CYPIAI) that encodes the enzyme responsible for initiating metabolism of polyaromatic hydrocarbon compounds found in ciga- rette smoke (Guengerich 1992, 1993). In one study of African Americans, the risk of adenocarcinoma of the lung was higher for smokers with the CYPlAl RFLP than for smokers who did not have this RFLP (Taioli et al. 1995). Two other studies, however, did not find an association between the presence of the variant al- lele in African Americans and increased lung cancer risk (Kelsey et al. 1994; London et al. 1995). Taioli and colleagues (1995) also found that persons who had adenocarcinoma with the African American CYPZAI RFLP had lower lifetime cigarette consumption, as measured by pack-years, compared with those who had adenocarcinoma without the polymorphism. However, using a cutoff point of 35 pack-years, London and colleagues (199.5) found no association between the variant CYPZAI variant allele and lung cancer risk based on smoking history. Additionally, a homozygous rare CYPlAl allele associated with the risk of lung cancer among persons from Japan (Kawajiri et al. 1990) was found more often in African Americans than in whites (Shields et al. 1993). How- ever, in a small case-control study, no association was observed between the presence of this polymorphism and lung cancer risk (Shields et al. 1993). Despite strong research interest in this area, scientists have been unable to consistently associate variant alleles with lung cancer susceptibility. The fre- quencies of the polymorphisms of interest appear to be low in United States populations studied thus far. Low frequencies of the alleles of interest suggest that future investigations must allow for an adequate sample size of the group under study and adjustment for factors such as smoking history and age. In addi- tion, low frequency allelic affects may be negated or obscured by high tobacco exposure levels. Two phenotypes were identified in African American and white persons representing poor and extensive extremes of glucuronidation (Richie et al. 1997). Glucuronidation is considered a detoxification pathway because it increases the water solubility of a chemical substrate and facilitates excretion (Goldstein and Faletto 1993). The ratio of conjugated metabolite to free metabolite of a tobacco-specific nitrosamine was 30 percent higher in the urine of white smokers than in African American smokers. This finding suggests that African Americans are at higher risk from nitrosamine exposure during smoking because of a decreased capacity to detoxify carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines. Hence, variability in glucuronosyltransferase activity, or in clearance of glu- curonide conjugates, may represent another determi- nant of cancer risk. The genetically determined poor, intermediate, or enhanced debrisoquine metabolizer phenotype has been investigated as a risk factor for lung cancer. Homozygous dominant (extensive metabolizer) indi- viduals were found more frequently among white lung cancer patients who smoked cigarettes than white control patients with COPD who smoked cigarettes (Ayes11 et al. 1984). Caporaso and colleagues confirmed the association between the extensive debrisoquine metabolizer phenotype and lung cancer risk. In this study, almost equivalent numbers of extensive metabolizers were found among African Americans (74 percent) and whites (73 percent) (Caporaso et al. 1990). Another approach in assessing the possible role of genetics is using chromosome breaks to measure cancer susceptibility. One research group has devel- oped an in vitro cytogenic assay that measures mutagen-induced chromosome breaks in short-term lymphocyte cultures. This approach has shown a relationship between mutagen sensitivity and elevated lung cancer. However, attempts to use this method as a predictive marker of racial/ethnic differences in can- cer risk in African and Mexican Americans produced inconsistent results (Spitz et al. 1995; Strom et al. 1995; Wu et al. 1996). Carcinogenesis can in\Tolve genotoxic mecha- nisms whereby chemical interactions at critical cellu- lar sites go unrepaired. Alterations in certain genes, kno\vn as proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, are linked with cancer risk (Land et al. 1983; Marshall et al. 1984; Slamon et al. 1984; Klein and Klein 1985; Denissenko et al. 1996). Some gene alleles that are e\,aluated as markers of lung cancer risk Ivary in their distributions among African Americans and whites. For example, in a study of lung cancer cases and trauma victim controls, Weston and colleagues (1991) found rare Ha-ras-1 alleles more often in the lung tissue of African Americans (17 percent) than in whites (5 percent). For both groups, the prevalence of rare alleles among lung cancer patients was higher than among controls (23 percent for African American lung cancer cases, 15 percent for African American trauma victim controls, 6 percent for white lung cancer cases, and 2 percent for white trauma victim controls). These findings were confirmed in a second study (Weston et al. 1992). African American and white differences in distribution of alleles at the L-myc locus and ~53 genotype have also been reported. The authors con- cluded that L-myc genotypes and p53 variants do not predict lung cancer risk (Weston et al. 1992). In summary, the higher rates of lung cancer ob- served among African American men are consistent with historical patterns of cigarette smoking in this century (Shopland 1995). In addition, African Ameri- can men aged 40-54 years may be especially suscep- tible to lung carcinogens (Schwartz and Swanson 1997), perhaps because they detoxify them differently (Richie et al. 1997). A genetic role in racial and ethnic-specific risk for lung cancer cannot be ruled out, because some studies have shown that African American populations have increased frequencies of rare alleles associated with greater risks for developing lung cancer than whites. However, because of the low frequency of these alleles in the populations under study and the possibility of misclassification bias, studies have been inconclusive (Shields et al. 1993; Taioli et al. 1995). Further, African American smokers prefer mentholated cigarettes, and menthol may promote the absorption and diffusion of tobacco smoke constituents (Jarvik et al. 1994; McCarthy et al. 1995; Clark et al. 1996a). This hypothesis has received inconsistent support in the epidemiological literature. Kabat and Herbert (1991) found no relationship between menthol use and lung cancer risk; however, Sidney and colleagues (1995) suggested that smoking mentholated cigarettes in- creased the risk of lung cancer only in male smokers. Further research could clarify the nature of individual susceptibility and the possible role of mentholation. Reduction in cigarette smoking will undoubtedly lead to reduction in the risk of lung cancer for African Americans. American Indians and Alaska Natives Since the early 19OOs, many studies have docu- mented the low overall occurrence of cancer among American Indians compared with whites (Hoffman 1928; Smith et al. 1956; Smith 1957; Salsbury et al. 1959; Sievers and Cohen 1961; Kravetz 1964; Reichenbach 1967; Creagan and Fraumeni 1972; Dunham et al. 1973; Blot et al. 1975; Lanier et al. 1976; Samet et al. 1980, 1988b; Sorem 1985; Mahoney and Michalek 1991; Nut- ting et al. 1993). Investigations of lung cancer inci- dence and deaths have confirmed that lung cancer is less frequent among American Indians overall than among whites (Coultas et al. 1994). Between 1992 and 1994, age-adjusted death rates for lung cancer per 100,000 among American Indian and Alaska Native men (33.5) and women (18.4) were slightly higher than those among Asian American and Pacific Islanders as well as Hispanics, whereas they were lower than rates among African Americans and whites (Table 2) (NCHS, public use data tapes, 1992-1994; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1997). Mortality rates for malignant diseases of the respiratory system increased from 1980 through 1995 among American Indians and Alaska Natives (Table 1) (NCHS 1997). Nationally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among American Indians and Alaska Natives. Among those who died of cancer in 1993, the four leading causes of death were lung cancer (26.8 percent), cancer of the colon and rectum (8.9 percent), cancer of the female breast (6.3 percent), and prostate cancer (6.0 percent) (Parker et al. 1997). Additionally, lung cancer was the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in 10 of the 12 Indian Figure 2. Age-adjusted lung cancer death rates among American Indian and Alaska Native men in seiecteh states compared with rates among all U.S. men, 1968-1987* 80 1 60 - All U.S. men - m - 1. Alaska North Dakota, 111 South Dakota, and Montana Michigan, m--a Minnesota, and Wisconsin - Oklahoma Arizona and New Mexico 1968-l 972 1973-l 977 Years 1978-1982 1983-1987 *Rates presented here were determined using midpoint population estimates for each 5-year time interval and were adjusted to the 1970 U.S. standard population. Source: Valway 1992. Health Service (IHS) areas (Arizona and New Mexico had low rates of lung cancer deaths) (Valway 19921. Lung cancer death rates among American Indians and Alaska Natives have been rising in most IHS areas (Fig- ures 2 and 3) (Valway 1992); national death rates from malignant diseases of the respiratory system have also been increasing (Table 1). Lung cancer death rates vary by IHS area. Spe- cifically, American Indians in the Southwest have had the lowest lung cancer death rates, whereas American Indians in Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana have had rates nearly as high as those in the general U.S. population (Table 3, Figures 2 and 3) (Valway 1992). These differences are associated with variations in smoking among American Indians and Alaska Natives (Centers for Disease Control [CDC] 1987; Welty et al. 1993). In an analysis of data from the 1985-1988 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) on 1,055 American Indians, Sugarman and colleagues (1992) determined smoking prevalence for three groups of states that contained three specific IHS areas. In this study, the Plains states (Iowa, Minne- sota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) contained the Aberdeen, Bemidji, and Billings IHS areas; the West Coast states (California, Idaho, and Washington) contained the Portland and California IHS areas; and the Southwest states (Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) contained the Al- buquerque, Navajo, Tucson, and Phoenix IHS areas. Cigarette smoking prevalence rates were highest in the Plains states (48.4 percent for men and 57.3 percent for women), intermediate in the West Coast states (25.2 percent for men and 31.6 percent for women), and low- est in the Southwestern states (18.1 percent for men and 14.7 percent for women). These general geo- graphic patterns of smoking prevalence paralleled patterns of lung cancer mortality (Table 3) (Valway 1992). The smoking prevalence estimates from the 1985-1988 BRFSS analyses may be imprecise because of relatively small samples. However, other analyses (American Indians and Alaska Natives, in Chapter 2; Welty et al. 1995) show similar patterns. Another TO~CCCJ USC Amng U.S. Racial/Efhnic Minorify Groups Figure 3. Age-adjusted lung cancer death rates among American Indian and Alaska Native women in selected states compared with rates among all U.S. women, 196%1987* a *, I II All U.S. women Alaska North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin Oklahoma Arizona and New Mexico I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1968-1972 1973-1977 1978-1982 1983-1987 Years *Rates presented here were determined using midpoint population estimates for each S-year time interval and were adjusted to the 1970 U.S. standard population Source: Valway 1992. potential limitation is that American Indians living in the California and Portland IHS areas may be more likely than American Indians from other IHS areas to be misclassified on death certificates as being of other racial/ethnic categories (Valway 1992), suggesting that death rates for American Indians may be underesti- mated in these areas (Sorlie et al. 1992). Lanier and colleagues (1996) recently reported on lung cancer incidence rates for Alaska Native men and women. Lung cancer incidence was higher for Alaska Natives than it was for the general U.S. population. In addition, lung cancer was the most common inci- dent cancer among men and the third most common incident cancer among women (after breast cancer and cancer of the colon/rectum). Lung cancer incidence increased substantially among Alaska Native men (by 93 percent) and women (by 241 percent) between 1969-1973 and 1989-1993. The authors concluded, "Reduction in tobacco use would result in the greatest decreases in cancer rates in this population" (p. 751). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders Two issues should always be kept in mind when interpreting data about the health consequences of cigarette smoking among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: the diversity of this group and the paucity of data. The Asian American and Pacific Islander population of the United States includes approxi- mately 32 national and racial/ethnic groups and nearly 500 languages and dialects. Although many of these persons were born in the United States, many others are recent immigrants (see Chapters 1 and 2); yet the national data do not indicate these distinctions. Envi- ronmental exposures experienced in Asia, such as women's exposure to smoke from cooking fuels, may influence lung cancer occurrence among recent immi- grants (Co&as et al. 1994). From 1980 through 1995, age-adjusted death rate for malignant neoplasms of the respiratory system (primarily deaths from lung cancer) among Asian Table 3. Death rates for lung cancer among American Indians and Alaska Natives, by Indian Health Service (IHS) area, 1984-1988 Areas Men Women N Rate* N Rate* U.S., all ethnicities Nine IHS areas*+ All 12 IHS areas Aberdeen Alaska Albuquerque Bemidji Billings California+ Nashville Navajo Oklahoma+ Phoenix Portland+ Tucson 74.2 27.3 307 38.5$ 203 27.2 562 40.1t 296 21.4i 63 68.7 41 45.01 80 75.5 62 68.5$ 12 18.8$ 5 7.8$ 41 63.4$ 24 40.71 36 65.3 33 65.7i 33 33.2' 8 6.6$ 24 41.8t 15 25.1 25 11.4i 7 4.0$ 167 46.0i 55 14.0$ 20 17.2$ 13 11.5* 55 40.5f 30 23.4 6 25.9i 3 13.5i *Per 100,000, age-adjusted to the 1970 U.S. standard population. Rates based on a small number of deaths should be interpreted with caution. `The California, Oklahoma, and Portland IHS areas appear to have a problem with underreporting Indian ethnicity on death certificates; therefore, a separate total is presented for the nine other IHS areas, excluding these three areas. iDenotes a rate significantlv different from the rate for the overall U.S. population. Source: Valway 1992. During 1988-1992, the age-adjusted (to the 1970 U.S. standard population) incidence per 100,000 popu- lation of lung cancer for men was 89.0 for Hawaiians, 70.9 for Vietnamese, 53.2 for Koreans, 52.6 for Filipi- nos, 52.1 for Chinese, and 43.0 for Japanese. For com- parison purposes, the lung cancer incidence rates were 117.0 for African American men, 76.0 for white men, and 41.8 for Hispanic men. For women, the lung can- cer incidence rates were 43.1 for Hawaiians, 31.2 for Vietnamese, 25.3 for Chinese, 17.5 for Filipinos, 16.0 for Koreans, and 15.2 for Japanese. In comparison, the lung cancer incidence rates were 44.2 for African American women, 41.5 for white women, and 19.5 for Hispanic women. American and Pacific Islander men remained fairly Age-adjusted lung cancer death rates during constant; this death rate for Asian American and Pa- 1988-1992 were, per 100,000 men, 88.9 for Hawaiians, cific Islander women increased slightly between 1980 40.1 for Chinese, 32.4 for Japanese, and 29.8 for Filipi- and 1995 but was substantially lower than for men nos; mortality estimates were not available for Kore- (Table 1) (NCHS 1997). Trends should be interpreted ans and Vietnamese of either gender. In comparison, with caution because the large numbers of immigrants the lung cancer death rates were 105.6 for African from Asia and the Pacific Islands that came to the American men, 72.6 for white men, and 32.4 for His- United States during that time may have influenced panic men. For women, the lung cancer death rates both disease prevalence in and the age structure of this were 44.1 for Hawaiians, 18.5 for Chinese, 12.9 for Japa- group. During 1992-1994, the age-adjusted death rate nese, and 10.0 for Filipinos. In comparison, the lung for lung cancer was 27.9 per 100,000 for Asian Ameri- cancer death rates were 31.9 for white women, 31.5 can and Pacific Islander men and 11.4 per 100,000 for for African American women, and 10.8 for Hispanic women (Table 2). These rates were slightly higher than women (NC1 1996b). The lung cancer rates reflect gen- those for Hispanics and slightly lower than those for der differences in smoking rates among Asian Ameri- American Indians and Alaska Natives. In 1993, the can and Pacific Islander populations, as indicated by four leading causes of cancer death among Asian 1978-1995 data from the NHISs (see Chapter 2). Americans and Pacific Islanders were lung cancer (22.3 percent of all cancer deaths), cancer of the colon and rectum (10.4 percent), cancer of the liver and intrahe- patic bile duct (8.6 percent), and stomach cancer (7.7 percent) (Parker et al. 1997). Data on lung cancer for more specific subgroups have been published in several reports (Baquet et al. 1986; Ross et al. 1991; Zane et al. 1994; NC1 1996b). The most recent data are from NCI's SEER program and provide information for 1988-1992. This report includes incidence data from the nine areas included in the annual SEER reports (e.g., Kosary et al. 1995) and from Los Angeles, San Jose/Monterey, and the Alaska Area Native Health Service. Data on Hispan- ics are predominantly from Los Angeles, New Mexico, San Francisco, and San Jose/Monterey. Most Hispan- ics represented in SEER are Mexican Americans. Data on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are mainly from Los Angeles, Hawaii, San Francisco/Oakland, San Jose/Monterey, and Seattle/Puget Sound. Data on American Indians are from New Mexico; data from the Alaska Native Area Health Service provide infor- mation on Alaska Natives (NC1 1996b). Tohncco Use Among U.S. Racinl/Ethic Mirzority Groups Several studies have identified high rates of lung cancer among Native Hawaiians. Data on lung cancer among Pacific Islanders from the Hawaii Tumor Regis- try indicate that Native Hawaiians have the highest lung cancer incidence rates among the islands' other racial/ethnic groups, including Japanese, Filipinos, and Chinese (Kolonell980; Hinds et al. 1981). Using medi- cal records of lung cancer patients and data from a population-based survey, Hinds and colleagues (19811 assessed the risk of developing lung cancer associated with smoking among M'omen in Hawaii. The risk for developing lung cancer among women ~~110 had e\`er smoked compared with those ~`1~0 had never smoked w'as substantially greater among Nati\-e Harvaiian women (tenfold higher) than among Japanese women (fivefold higher) and Chinese women (tlvofold higher). In a comparison of the risks of smoking among Natilre Hawaiians, Filipinos, Japanese, and Chinese in HawFaii, Le Marchand and colleagues (1992) found that Native Hawaiian men had the highest risk and that lvhite and Filipino women had higher risks than Native Hawai- ian women. The pattern of variation of smoking's effect on lung cancer \vas statistically significant for men. These differences persisted after variables for beta-carotene and cholesterol intake were included in the statistical model. The observation that the risk of lung cancer related to smoking may vary among sub- groups requires further elucidation. In a cohort study of 7,961 Japanese American men who were living in Hawaii, the incidence of lung cancer was 11.4 times higher in current smokers than in persons ~`110 had never smoked; the risk for former smokers was 3.1 times higher than for never smokers (Chyou et al. 1993). Hispanics According to NCHS data from 1985 through 1995, the age-adjusted death rate for malignant neoplasms of the respiratory system (primarily deaths from lung cancer) among Hispanic men was about three times higher than that for Hispanic women (Table 1) (NCHS 1997). Trends should be interpreted with caution, be- cause only 17 states and the District of Columbia con- tributed death certificate data on Hispanics for 1985; by 1990, however, 47 states and the District of Colum- bia, covering 99.6 percent of the U.S. Hispanic popu- lation, contributed relevant data (Table 1) (NCHS 1997). From 1992 through 1994, the age-adjusted death rate for cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung (gener- ally referred to as lung cancer) was 23.1 per 100,000 for Hispanic men and 7.7 per 100,000 for Hispanic women (Table 2). Overall, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among Hispanics. Among those who died of cancer in 1993, the four leading causes of death were lung cancer (17.9 percent), cancer of the colon and rectum (9.6 percent), cancer of the female breast (8.2 percent), and cancer of the liver and other biliary organs (6.0 percent) (Parker et al. 1997). Among Hispanic women, however, breast cancer mortality exceeds that of lung cancer (NC1 1996b). National mortality data for 1992-1994 (Table 4) also indicate that rates of lung cancer per 100,000 were higher among Cuban men (33.7) than among Mexican American (28.3) and Puerto Rican men (21.9). Among women, little variation is evident acro