Objectives: This paper examines the prevalence of tobacco use among sexual minorities in the US through a systematic review of literature from 1987 to May 2007. Methods: Seven databases were searched for peer-reviewed research (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library via Wiley InterScience, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Health Source: Nursing/Academic, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science, PsycINFO via EBSCO Host and PubMed). No language restrictions were used. Abstracts were identified in the literature search (n = 734) and were independently read and coded for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers. When agreement was not reached, a third reviewer acted as arbitrator. Abstracts were included if they presented data collected in the US from 1987 to May 2007 and reported prevalence or correlation of tobacco use with sexual minority status. Studies reporting data from HIV-positive samples were excluded. The identified articles (n = 46) were independently read by two reviewers who recorded key outcome measures, including prevalence and/or odds ratios of tobacco use, sample size and domain of sexuality (identity, behaviour, or desire). Factors relating to study design and methodology were used to assess study quality according to nine criteria. Results: In the 42 included studies, 119 measures of tobacco prevalence or association were reported. The available evidence points to disparities in smoking among sexual minorities that are significantly higher than among the general population. Conclusions: Ongoing, targeted interventions addressing smoking among sexual minorities are warranted in tobacco control programs.

We systematically reviewed evidence of disparities in tobacco marketing at tobacco retailers by sociodemographic neighborhood characteristics. We identified 43 relevant articles from 893 results of a systematic search in 10 databases updated May 28, 2014. We found 148 associations of marketing (price, placement, promotion, or product availability) with a neighborhood demographic of interest (socioeconomic disadvantage, race, ethnicity, and urbanicity).Neighborhoods with lower income have more tobacco marketing. There is more menthol marketing targeting urban neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more Black residents. Smokeless tobacco products are targeted more toward rural neighborhoods and neighborhoods with more White residents. Differences in store type partially explain these disparities.There are more inducements to start and continue smoking in lower-income neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with more Black residents. Retailer marketing may contribute to disparities in tobacco use. Clinicians should be aware of the pervasiveness of these environmental cues.

Objective To conduct a systematic review of the literature examining risk factors/correlates of cigarette smoking among lesbian, gay and bisexual (ie, sexual minority) populations. Methods Sets of terms relevant to sexual minority populations and cigarette smoking were used in a simultaneous search of 10 databases through EBSCOhost. The search was limited to the peer-reviewed literature up to January 2011, using no geographic or language limits. For inclusion, the paper was required to: (1) have been written in English, (2) have sexual minorities (defined by either attraction, behaviour, or identity) included in the study population and (3) have examined some form of magnitude of association for risk factors/correlates of any definition of cigarette smoking. A total of 386 abstracts were reviewed independently, with 26 papers meeting all inclusion criteria. Abstracts were reviewed and coded independently by authors JB and JGLL using nine codes derived from the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results Studies used various measures of sexual orientation and of smoking. Risk factors that could be considered unique to sexual minorities included internalised homophobia and reactions to disclosure of sexual orientation. Some studies also indicated common smoking risk factors experienced at higher rates among sexual minorities, including stress, depression, alcohol use and victimisation. Conclusions This review identified risks that were associated with sexual minority status and common to the general population but experienced at potentially higher rates by sexual minorities. Government and foundation funds should be directed towards research on the origins of this disparity.

Research shows that constraining aspects of male gender norms negatively influence both women’s and men’s health. Messaging that draws on norms of masculinity in health programming has been shown to improve both women’s and men’s health, but some types of public health messaging (e.g., Man Up Monday, a media campaign to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections) can reify harmful aspects of hegemonic masculinity that programs are working to change. We critically assess the deployment of hegemonic male norms in the Man Up Monday campaign. We draw on ethical paradigms in public health to challenge programs that reinforce harmful aspects of gender norms and suggest the use of gender-transformative interventions that challenge constraining masculine norms and have been shown to have a positive effect on health behaviors.