Research on whether sexual orientation discrimination is associated with multiple tobacco product use among sexual minority (SM) adults is limited. Thus, we explored the associations between sexual orientation discrimination and exclusive, dual, and polyuse among a subset of SM adults (18+) (n = 3453) using the 2012–2013 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions-III. We evaluated six indicators of prior-to-past-year sexual orientation discrimination separately and as a summary scale and defined past-year exclusive, dual, and polyuse based on cigarette, electronic nicotine delivery systems, other combustible (cigars and traditional pipe), and smokeless tobacco products. Using multinomial logistic regression, we estimated adjusted associations between sexual orientation discrimination and exclusive, dual, and polyuse. Experiencing discrimination in public places, being called names, and being bullied, assaulted, or threatened were associated with dual use, while experiencing discrimination when obtaining health care or insurance and when receiving health care were associated with polyuse. Each one-unit increase in the sexual orientation discrimination summary scale was associated with 5% and 10% higher odds of dual (95% CI: 1.01–1.10) and polyuse (95% CI: 1.02–1.18), respectively. To conclude, we advise health professionals to consider the salience of discrimination against SM adults and how these experiences lead to dual/polyuse.

To analyze the impact of Truth and state-sponsored anti-tobacco media campaigns on youth smoking in the United States, and their potential to reduce tobacco-related health disparities. Our study included data from the 2000–2015 Monitoring the Future study, an annual nationally representative survey of youth in 8th (n = 201 913), 10th (n = 194 468), and 12th grades (n = 178 379). Our primary exposure was Gross Rating Points (GRPs) of Truth or state-sponsored anti-tobacco advertisements, from Nielsen Media Research. Modified Poisson regression was used to assess the impact of a respondent’s GRPs on smoking intentions, past 30-day smoking participation, and first and daily smoking initiation. Additive interactions with sex, parental education, college plans, and race/ethnicity were used to test for differential effects of campaign exposure on each outcome. Greater campaign exposure (80th vs. 20th GRP percentile) was associated with lower probabilities of smoking intentions among 8th graders, smoking participation among 8th and 12th graders, and initiation among 8th graders. Greater exposure was associated with a greater reduction in the likelihood of smoking participation among 10th and 12th grade males than females; 10th and 12th graders with parents of lower education versus those with a college degree; and 12th graders who did not definitely plan to go to college relative to those who did. Media campaign exposure was associated with a lower likelihood of youth smoking behaviors. Associations were more pronounced for groups disproportionately affected by smoking, including youth of lower socioeconomic status. Media campaigns may be useful in reducing smoking disparities and improving health equity. Few recent studies have investigated the impact of anti-tobacco media campaigns on youth smoking and their potential to reduce tobacco-related health disparities in the United States. We found media campaigns—specifically state-sponsored media campaigns—reduced the likelihood of several smoking outcomes among youth, with some evidence that they mitigate disparities for disproportionately affected groups.

(1) Background: Smoking restrictions have been shown to be associated with reduced smoking, but there are a number of gaps in the literature surrounding the relationship between smoke-free policies and cessation, including the extent to which this association may be modified by sociodemographic characteristics. (2) Methods: We analyzed data from the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 2003–2015, to explore whether multiple measures of smoking restrictions were associated with cessation across population subgroups. We examined area-based measures of exposure to smoke-free laws, as well as self-reported exposure to workplace smoke-free policies. We used age-stratified, fixed effects logistic regression models to assess the impact of each smoke-free measure on 90-day cessation. Effect modification by gender, education, family income, and race/ethnicity was examined using interaction terms. (3) Results: Coverage by workplace smoke-free laws and self-reported workplace smoke-free policies was associated with higher odds of cessation among respondents ages 40–54. Family income modified the association between smoke-free workplace laws and cessation for women ages 25–39 (the change in the probability of cessation associated with coverage was most pronounced among lower-income women). (4) Conclusions: Heterogeneous associations between policies and cessation suggest that smoke-free policies may have important implications for health equity.

Exposure to structural stigma (i.e., societal norms and policies that constrain access to resources) may help explain poor health outcomes among sexual minority (SM) individuals in the USA. We examined the relationship between structural stigma and smoking prevalence among U.S. SM and heterosexual adults. We adapted an index to capture multiple state-level structural stigma indicators, including attitudes toward same-sex marriage; the geographical density of same-sex couples; and state-level policies toward SMs. The outcome variable was current smoking, derived from the National Adult Tobacco Survey (2012–2014). Poisson regression models stratified by SM status were used to assess the relationship between structural stigma and the prevalence ratio (PR) of current smoking. We included a squared term for stigma to explore nonlinear relationships between stigma and smoking. Interaction terms were used to examine effect modification by sex. Adjusted models suggested a curvilinear PR relationship between stigma and smoking for both SM (linear PR = 1.03 [0.97–1.08]; quadratic PR = 0.98 [0.97–1.00]) and heterosexual (linear PR = 1.00 [0.99–1.02]; quadratic PR = 0.99 [0.988–0.995]) adults. The quadratic term was significant (p < .05) for both SM and heterosexual respondents, however, the change in probability of smoking associated with structural stigma was more pronounced among SM individuals. Specifically, the highest and lowest exposures to stigma were associated with the lowest probabilities of smoking. There was no apparent effect modification by sex. Findings lend support to addressing SM structural stigma as a driver of smoking, particularly among SM adults.

This study sought to empirically evaluate whether the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act increased smoking cessation among low-income childless adult smokers. The effects of the Medicaid expansion on smoking quit attempts and the probability of 30- and 90-day smoking cessation were evaluated using logistic regression and data from the 2010-2011 and 2014-2015 waves of the Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey. Using boosted logistic regression, the Tobacco Use Supplement was restricted to an analytic sample composed of childless adults with high probability of being <138% of the federal poverty level. Propensity score weighting was used to compare changes in smoking cessation among a sample of current and past smokers in states that expanded Medicaid with a control sample of current and past smokers in states that did not expand Medicaid with similar sociodemographic characteristics and smoking histories. This study additionally controlled for state socioeconomic trends, welfare policies, and tobacco control policies. Analysis was conducted between January 2018 and June 2019. After weighting by propensity score and adjusting for state socioeconomic trends, welfare policies, and tobacco control policies, the Medicaid expansion was not associated with increases in smoking quit attempts or smoking cessation. The Medicaid expansion did not appear to improve smoking cessation, despite extending health insurance eligibility to 2.3 million low-income smokers. Greater commitments to reducing barriers to cessation benefits and increasing smoking cessation in state Medicaid programs are needed to reduce smoking in low-income populations.