Does Experienced Discrimination Explain Patterns of Menthol Use Among Young Adults? Evidence from the 2014 San Francisco Bay Area Young Adult Health Survey

Impacts of Tax and Flavor Tobacco Policies on San Francisco Bay Area Tobacco Prices

California Proposition 56 increased the state tobacco tax by $2 per cigarette pack effective April 1, 2017. Between 2015-2020 San Francisco (SF) and some cities in Alameda County enacted local flavored tobacco sales restrictions. SF also increased its Cigarette Litter Abatement Fee, from $0.20/pack in 2015 to $1.00 in 2020. Compare the change in tobacco prices before (2015) and after (2019/20) the implementation of a $2 increase in tobacco excise tax and local flavored tobacco policies in SF and Alameda Counties. Descriptive study of the pre-to-post policy analysis design. We drew a proportional random sample of retailers (N=463) in SF and Alameda Counties, by city. Using multivariable, single- and multiple-level linear regressions, we compared inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and by flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Change in inflation-adjusted average tobacco prices in 2015 vs. 2019/20 by county and flavor policy, accounting for socio-demographics. Between 2015-2019/20, the increase in cigarette prices was higher than the $2 tax increase, and higher in SF than Alameda County (+$4.6 vs +$2.5). SF retailers stopped selling Newport menthol cigarettes and Blu brand menthol e-cigarettes in 2019/20. Adjusted average cigarette prices increased significantly more in SF and Alameda County cities with comprehensive or partial flavor policies versus cities without flavor policies (by $3.23 and $2.11). Local flavor policies affected menthol product availability and may have had positive spillover effects and indirectly increased pack prices.

From Cancer Epidemiology to Policy and Practice: the Role of a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Purpose of Review

Cancer incidence and mortality are decreasing, but inequities in outcomes persist. This paper describes the San Francisco Cancer Initiative (SF CAN) as a model for the systematic application of epidemiological evidence to reduce the cancer burden and associated inequities.

Recent Findings

SF CAN is a multi-institutional implementation of existing evidence on the prevention and early detection of five common cancers (i.e., breast, prostate, colorectal, liver, and lung/tobacco-related cancers) accounting for 50% of cancer deaths in San Francisco. Five Task Forces follow individual logic models designating inputs, outputs, and outcomes. We describe the progress made and the challenges faced by each Task Force after 5 years of activity.

Summary

SF CAN is a model for how the nation’s Comprehensive Cancer Centers are ideally positioned to leverage cancer epidemiology for evidence-based initiatives that, along with genuine community engagement and multiple stakeholders, can reduce the population burden of cancer.

Discrimination, Sexual Orientation Discrimination, and Severity of Tobacco Use Disorder in the United States: Results From the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use is more prevalent among sexual minority populations relative to heterosexual populations. Discrimination is a known risk factor for tobacco use. However, the relationship between exposure to different forms of discrimination, such as racial or ethnic discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination, and tobacco use disorder (TUD) severity has not been examined.

AIMS AND METHODS

Using data from the 2012-2013 National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions-III (n = 36 309 US adults), we conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the associations among racial or ethnic discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, and TUD severity for lesbian or gay-, bisexual-, and heterosexual-identified adults. Consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fifth Edition (DSM-5), past-year moderate-to-severe TUD was defined as the presence of ≥4 DSM-5 TUD symptoms.

RESULTS

Higher levels of lifetime racial or ethnic discrimination were associated with significantly greater odds of past-year moderate-to-severe TUD among sexual minorities (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01-1.05) and heterosexuals (AOR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.03-1.05). Stressful life events, mood disorder, and anxiety disorder had significant associations with moderate-to-severe TUD among sexual minorities (AOR range: 1.86-5.22, p < .005) and heterosexuals (AOR range: 1.71-3.53, p < .005). Among sexual minorities, higher levels of racial or ethnic and/or sexual orientation discrimination were associated with greater odds of any TUD (AOR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minorities and heterosexuals who experience higher levels of racial or ethnic discrimination are at heightened risk of having moderate-to-severe TUD. Exposure to higher levels of discrimination also increases the risk of having any TUD among sexual minority adults. Health providers and tobacco cessation professionals should be cognizant of the minority stressors experienced by their clients and their potential impact on TUD severity.

IMPLICATIONS

This study is the first to show how experiences of racial or ethnic and sexual orientation discrimination are associated with DSM-5 TUD severity among sexual minority and heterosexual populations. Individuals exposed to multiple minority stressors may have increased vulnerability for developing TUD and related adverse health consequences. Our study underscores the importance of considering racial or ethnic discrimination and the multiple minority statuses that individuals may hold. Eliminating all forms of discrimination and developing interventions that are sensitive to the role that discrimination plays in TUD severity may attenuate the tobacco use disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual adults.

Measures of dependence in menthol and nonmenthol smokers - A comprehensive narrative review

Introduction. More than a decade ago, concerns were raised that menthol in cigarettes might enhance addiction to smoking. This article provides a comprehensive review of published studies examining cigarette dependence among menthol and nonmenthol smokers. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the scientific evidence to determine if menthol increases cigarette dependence. Materials and Methods. The published literature was searched in 2019 for studies that provide evidence on cigarette dependence among menthol compared to nonmenthol smokers. Included in this review are published studies that compare menthol and nonmenthol smokers based on widely accepted and validated measures of dependence, or other established predictors of dependence (age of smoking initiation [first cigarette]/age of progression [regular/daily smoking]) and indicators of dependence (smoking frequency, cigarettes smoked per day, time to first cigarette after waking, night waking to smoke, smoking duration). Results and Conclusion. Based on a review of the available studies, including those with adjusted results and large representative samples, reliable and consistent empirical evidence supports a conclusion that menthol smokers are not more dependent than nonmenthol smokers and thus menthol in cigarettes does not increase dependence.