↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of transitions between cigarette and smokeless tobacco product use in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review of transitions between cigarette and smokeless tobacco product use in the United States
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1594-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamie Tam, Hannah R Day, Brian L Rostron, Benjamin J Apelberg

Abstract

Smokeless tobacco use is becoming an increasingly important public health issue in the US and may influence cigarette smoking behavior. Systematic information on transitions between smokeless tobacco and cigarette use in the US is limited. We conducted a systematic review of published literature on transitions between smokeless tobacco and cigarette use in the US. We searched PubMed, Web of Science and EbscoHost databases for all published articles from January 2000 to March 2014 that presented estimates of transitions in US youth and adult study populations over time between at least one of the following tobacco use states: exclusive cigarette smoking, exclusive smokeless tobacco use, dual use of both products, and use of neither product. We excluded non-English language studies, studies published before 2000, clinical trials, controlled cessation programs, and clinical studies or evaluations of smokeless tobacco cessation programs. The review identified six studies on US populations published since 2000 with longitudinal data on some or all of the transitions that users can undergo between smokeless tobacco and cigarette use. There was considerable heterogeneity across studies in design and tobacco use definitions. Despite these differences, the existing data indicate that switching behaviors from exclusive smoking to exclusive smokeless tobacco use are limited (adults: 0%-1.4%, adolescents: 0.8%-3.8%) but may be more common from exclusive smokeless tobacco use to exclusive smoking (adults: 0.9%-26.6%, adolescents: 16.6%-25.5%). Among adults, exclusive cigarette smoking was generally stable and consistent (79.7% to 87.6%) over follow-up across studies but less stable in adolescents (46.8%-78.7%). Exclusive smokeless tobacco use was less stable than exclusive cigarette smoking over time (adults: 59.4%-76.6%, adolescents: 26.2%-44.8%). This review provides published estimates of the proportions of adults and adolescents transitioning between tobacco use categories from the most recently available studies on longitudinal transitions between smokeless tobacco and cigarettes in the US. These data can be used to track tobacco use behaviors and evaluate their effect on public health; however, the data for these studies were generally collected more than a decade ago. Additional research including nationally representative longitudinal estimates using consistent definitions and designs, would improve understanding of current tobacco transition behaviors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 16 25%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Social Sciences 7 11%
Psychology 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,219,838
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,327
of 14,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,965
of 286,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#202
of 302 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 302 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.