Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Health Behav. 2015 Nov;39(6):832–848. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.39.6.11

Hookah Smoking and Facilitators/Barriers to Lounge Use among Students at a US University

Nada O F Kassem 1, Sheila R Jackson 2, Marie Boman-Davis 3, Noura O Kassem 4, Sandy Liles 5, Reem M Daffa 6, Roxana Yasmin 7, Hala Madanat 8, Melbourne F Hovell 9
PMCID: PMC4594953  NIHMSID: NIHMS722080  PMID: 26450551

Abstract

Objective

To examine hookah tobacco use, hookah lounge attendance, and facilitators and barriers to hookah lounge attendance.

Methods

A cross-sectional Web-based survey of a random sample of 1332 undergraduate students (Mean Age = 21.2 years) attending a United States university.

Results

The majority of respondents (72.8%) had ever smoked hookah tobacco, and 28% of those had ever smoked during adolescence. The majority of ever hookah smokers (81.5%) and a portion of never hookah smokers (20%) had ever been to a hookah lounge. The adjusted odds of ever visiting a hookah lounge were 2.1 times higher among participants who reported that the closest hookah lounge to the university was < 5 miles away than those who reported that the closest hookah lounge was ≥ 5 miles away. Facilitators of visiting hookah lounges included friends and close proximity of hookah lounges to campus; barriers included cost of smoking hookah, crowded lounges, and having to be 18 years old.

Conclusion

Youth are vulnerable to experimenting with hookah tobacco smoking. Hookah lounges provide patrons the opportunity to smoke hookah tobacco with smoker and non-smoker friends in entertaining settings. Our findings suggest that zoning laws and anti-hookah smoking legislation may help curb hookah uptake by prohibiting hookah lounges from opening in close proximity to universities, reducing the density of hookah lounges in cities, and raising the admission age for hookah lounges to 21 years.

Keywords: hookah, waterpipe, initiation, lounge, college, university students


The increase in popularity of hookah tobacco smoking (referred to as ‘hookah smoking’ in this paper) has been reported around the world, particularly among college students.1-4 In the United States (US), the 2014 US National College Health Assessment II (ACHA - NCHA II) found that of US undergraduate college students, 38.2% of men and 31.4% of women, reported ever using hookah tobacco, and 11.6% of men and 8.3% of women reported current use (past 30 days).5 US college-based random sample surveys report higher ever hookah use rates than national surveys ranging from 15.4% to 61%, and current use rates ranging from 6% to 20%.6-10 Data from the 2009-2010 ACHA - NCHA II found that 95% of college students who report current hookah use are undergraduates.11 This suggests that US college students, especially undergraduates, are susceptible to experimenting with smoking an emerging form of tobacco manufactured to be used in a device called a hookah.

A hookah (waterpipe) consists of a bowl, a vertical tube that passes into a partially-filled water jar, and a flexible hose with a mouthpiece. Burning charcoal heats the hookah tobacco placed in the bowl, producing the smoke that is drawn from the bowl, and through water upon inhalation by the smoker via the hose.3,12 Flavored hookah tobacco is the most popular and typically consists of tobacco fermented with molasses and fruits mixed with glycerin and chemical flavoring substances.3,13 Over 250 different hookah tobacco flavors are available.14,15 Compared to cigarette smoke, hookah tobacco smoke contains 1000 times higher quantities of artificial flavoring substances that are potentially hazardous to health.15 The pleasant smell, taste, and variety of hookah tobacco may camouflage the health risk of smoking tobacco and entice hookah smokers, while also encouraging non-smokers to begin experimenting with hookah smoking.14,16

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in 2009 authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate hookah tobacco to prevent and reduce tobacco use by young people.17 To date, the FDA has banned cigarettes with characterizing flavors other than menthol or tobacco; however, this ban has not been extended to flavored hookah tobacco.18 Hookah tobacco flavors and the passing of smoke through water before inhalation may contribute to the false perception among hookah smokers that hookah tobacco smoking is less harmful than smoking cigarettes.2

Hookah smokers are exposed to the addictive drug nicotine, as well as carcinogens and toxicants such as tobacco-specific nitrosamines and benzene, which put them at risk for tobacco-related and charcoal-related preventable acute and chronic illnesses.19-22 Hookah smoking has been associated with increased risk of heart disease, lung cancer, and oral cancers.23 Hookah smoking is often practiced in social settings such as hookah lounges.3,16,22

A hookah lounge, referred to hereafter as ‘a lounge’, is a commercial venue that offers patrons an opportunity to smoke hookah tobacco using a hookah, as well as to socialize.24 Patrons are exposed to indoor air quality levels considered hazardous to human health containing toxic and carcinogenic chemicals, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nicotine, and ultrafine particles.25 Lounges, also called hookah bars and cafes, have been increasing in the US, possibly due to their exemption from some clean indoor air legislation, lack of regulation of hookah tobacco products by the FDA, perceptions that hookah smoking is safer than cigarettes, and absence of public health interventions to educate youth about the harmful effects of hookah use.2,26-29

In 2006, the American Lung Association estimated that there were 200-300 lounges operating in the US.12 A 2014 study estimated that there were 175 lounges in California alone.30 Initiation of hookah smoking was reported to have taken place in lounges.16,31 Lounges are highly concentrated around universities, and likely, target students.7,12,32 Therefore, it is necessary to examine factors influencing lounge attendance to identify points of intervention to reduce attendance and thus reduce the spread of lounges and hookah tobacco smoking.

This study focusing on undergraduate students at a US university examined: (1) ever and past 30 days use of hookah tobacco and cigarettes by sex; (2) hookah use initiation and use behaviors by sex; (3) lounge attendance behaviors and perceived proximity of lounges to university campus and home among never hookah smokers and ever hookah smokers by sex; (d) types of entertainment and lounge physical layouts; and (5) facilitators and barriers to visiting lounges.

METHODS

Participants and Study Design

This cross-sectional study investigated patterns of hookah use and lounge attendance in a random sample of 1332 US undergraduate students (age ≥ 18 years) in an urban public university in San Diego County. These students participated in a spring 2007 Web-based hookah behavior survey. After receiving approval from the University Institutional Review Board, the university Enrollment Services (E.S.) randomly selected 10,000 students from the database of 26,019 undergraduate students with email addresses on file. E.S. safeguarded student privacy by first sending an opt-out email notifying them of a forthcoming email invitation to participate in a web-based survey on hookah tobacco use. A total 191 students were omitted from further contact due to activation of the opt-out feature. The result was a total of 9809 potential student participants.

The invitation email included a brief description of the study; the anticipated length of time to complete the survey; an opportunity to win one of 5 money orders worth $50; a unique hyperlink to the survey; survey end date; and study contact information. Two additional reminder emails were sent by the E.S. The first email reminder was sent 72 hours after the initial email invitation and the final email reminder was sent 72 hours later. Participants had a total of 9 days to use the hyperlink to complete the survey. Students were allowed to complete the survey in multiple visits.33

We developed a hookah questionnaire and checked its content validity by consulting the literature on hookah use and US national surveys on tobacco use.34-37 SurveyMonkey.com was used to format the hookah questionnaire and collect data. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete. All participants read and electronically signed an informed consent prior to initiating the survey. A total of 1374 students (13.74%) responded to the survey. Because we were focusing on undergraduate university aged students, we excluded data of 42 students whose age ranged from 35-60 years. Final analyses were conducted on 1332 students aged 18-34 years.

Measures

Socio-demographic characteristics

We asked about age, sex, race/ethnicity and country of birth.

Hookah use

Ever hookah smokers were identified by a “Yes” response to “Have you ever tried or smoked a hookah, even a few puffs?” and never hookah smokers by a “No” response. Hookah use assessment included awareness of hookah tobacco, age first tried to smoke hookah, location and who they were with when first tried hookah; ever, past 7 days and past 30 days hookah use; and ever and past 30 days cigarette use. Past 30 days users were considered current users. ‘Ever dual smokers’ was defined as those who ever tried both hookah and a cigarette, and ‘current dual smokers’ as those who reported past 30 days use of both hookah and cigarettes.

Lounge attendance behaviors

We asked about awareness of lounges, ever been to a lounge, how often visited lounges, the length of time usually spent at a lounge, how far they lived and how far their university was from the nearest lounge, and whether they supported opening more lounges.

Facilitators and barriers to attending lounges

We asked open-ended questions about entertainment and physical layouts of lounges, and facilitators and barriers to visiting lounges.

Data Analysis

Data were exported from SurveyMonkey, and analyzed in SPSS version 22 using 2-tailed statistical tests (alpha = .05). Pearson chi-square tests were used for categorical variables and independent sample t-tests for continuous variables to assess differences in hookah smoking and lounge related behaviors by sex and by ever hookah use. A binary logistic regression model was used to assess the relationship of ever visiting a lounge to (1) awareness of lounges, and (2) perceived distance of the nearest lounge from the university, adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and ever hookah use. For open-ended questions, based on initial reading of responses, an a priori codebook was developed by the principal investigator (PI) and reviewed by the study team. Participants’ responses were manually grouped independently by 2 coders, the data manager and a hookah smoker graduate university student intern. The PI and the 2 coders discussed discrepancies and made corresponding modifications to coding. The codebook was updated by emerging themes.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics, ever hookah use, and ever cigarette use are presented in Table 1. The mean (M) age of respondents was 21.2 years (SD = 2.73). About half were white, and those who chose the ‘Other’ option for ethnicity considered themselves bi- or multi-ethnic, or identified themselves by their country of origin, such as Italy or the Philippines, or identified themselves by other ethnicities such as Middle Eastern/Arab (N = 28) or Pacific Islander. The majority (87.1%) were born in the US. Those who reported being born in another country (N = 115) cited 34 countries: 23 students were born in Mexico, 16 students in the Philippines, and 1-5 students were born in each of the remaining 32 countries.

Table 1.

Demographics and Ever Hookah Use among Undergraduate Students at a University in San Diego, CA (N = 1332)

All Participants
Ever Hookah Smokers
Total N = 1332 Ever Hookah Smokers N = 970 Never Hookah Smokers N = 362 Men N = 344 Women N = 626

N (%) N (%) N (%) pa N (%) N (%) pa
Age (years)
    18-20 628 (47.1) 466 (48.0) 162 (44.8) 153 (44.5) 313 (50.0)
    21-24 565 (42.4) 423 (43.6) 142 (39.2) 160 (46.5) 263 (42.0)
    25-34 139 (10.4) 81 (8.4) 58 (16.0) 31 (9.0) 50 (8.0)
    Mean (SD)b 21.2 (2.73) 21 (2.42) 21.7 (3.37) <.001 21.2 (2.49) 20.9 (2.38) .257
    Median (Min-Max)c 21 (18-34) 21 (18-34) 21 (18-34) 21 (18-32) 20.5 (18-34)
Sex
    Men 446 (33.5) 344 (35.5) 102 (28.2) - - - -
    Women 886 (66.5) 626 (64.5) 260 (71.8) .012 - - - -
Ethnicity
    White 601 (45.1) 479 (49.4) 122 (33.7) 168 (48.8) 311 (49.7)
    Hispanic 297 (22.3) 193 (19.9) 104 (28.7) 73 (21.2) 120 (19.2)
    Asian 231 (17.3) 157 (16.2) 74 (20.4) 56 (16.3) 101 (16.1)
    African American 47 (3.5) 26 (2.7) 21 (5.8) 12 (3.5) 14 (2.2)
    Other 156 (11.7) 115 (11.9) 41 (11.3) <.001 35 (10.2) 80 (12.8) .546
Where were you born?
    US 776 (87.1) 543 (88.6) 233 (83.8) 185 (87.7) 358 (89.1)
    Another country 115 (12.9) 70 (11.4) 45 (16.2) .049 26 (12.3) 44 (10.9) .611
Are you aware of hookah tobacco?
    Yes 1239 (96.3) 947 (100) 292 (85.9) 335 (100) 612 (100)
    No 48 (3.7) 0 (0) 48 (14.1) <.001 0 (0) 0 (0) .899
Have you ever tried or smoked a hookah, even a few puffs?d
    Yes 970 (72.8) 970 (100) 0 (0) 344 (77.1) 626 (70.7)
    No 362 (27.2) 0 (0) 362 (100) 102 (22.9) 240 (29.3) .012
Have you ever tried cigarettes?
    Yes 669 (58.9) 566 (71.6)e 103 (29.8) 204 (74.7) 362 (70.0)
    No 467 (41.1) 224 (28.4) 243 (70.2) <.001 69 (25.3) 155 (30.0) .163
Did you smoke cigarettes during the past 30 days?
    Yes 134 (11.8) 117 (14.8) 17 (4.9) 52 (19.0) 65 (12.6)
    No 1003 (88.2) 673 (85.2) 330 (95.1) <.001 221 (81.0) 452 (87.4) .015

Note.

a

p - value from Pearson's chi-square test or t-test, as appropriate, for significance at p < .05. Statistically significant p values are bolded.

b

SD = Standard Deviation.

c

Min-Max = Minimum - Maximum.

d

‘Hookah’ was referred to in the questionnaire as ‘hookah tobacco’.

e

71.6% were ‘Ever dual smokers’ = ever use of both hookah and cigarettes.

Some cells with expected count of less than 5 violated the assumptions of the chi-square test.

Due to missing values, some variables do not total the sample size 1332.

Students in our sample and the university undergraduate population during our study period were relatively similar: women (66.5% vs 57.8%, respectively) outnumbered men (33.5% vs 42.2%, respectively), the majority were between the ages of 18-24 years (89.5% vs 85%, respectively), and the ethnic make-up was as follows: white – 45.1% vs 45.3%, Hispanics – 22.3% vs 21.5%, and Asians – 17.3% vs 15%, respectively.

The overall prevalence rate of ever hookah use was 72.8%. Ever hookah smokers, compared to never hookah smokers, were younger, more likely to have ever tried cigarettes, and more likely to be current cigarette smokers. Among ever hookah smokers, 71.6% were ‘ever dual smokers’ who reported ever using both hookah and cigarettes, and 28.4% had never tried cigarettes. The majority of never hookah smokers were aware of hookah tobacco.

Men and women ever hookah smokers did not differ significantly in age or ethnic makeup. More than two-thirds of both men and women reported ever hookah use. Irrespective of sex, the majority of ever hookah smokers (71.6%) were ‘ever dual smokers’, although 25.3% of men and 30% of women ever hookah users had never tried cigarettes.

Age of Initiation and Hookah Use Behaviors

Table 2 presents hookah use initiation and hookah use behaviors. A total of 28.1% of the participants overall first tried to smoke hookah at an age younger than 18 years, 40.3% at age 18 years, 29.6% at ages 19-24 years, and only 2% at ages 25-34 years. No significant difference was found between men and women on age first tried to smoke hookah.

Table 2.

Hookah Use Initiation and Hookah Use Behaviors among Ever Hookah Smoker Undergraduate Students at a University in San Diego, CA (N = 970)

Ever Hookah Smokers
Ever Hookah Smokers N = 970 Men N = 344 Women N = 626

N (%) N (%) N (%) pa
About how old were you when you first tried to smoke hookah? (years) b, c
    <18 252 (28.1) 97 (30.7) 155 (26.7)
    18 361 (40.3) 116 (36.7) 245 (42.2)
    19-24 265 (29.6) 97 (30.7) 168 (29.0)
    25-34 18 (2.0) 6 (1.9) 12 (2.1) .401
    Mean (SD)d 18.3 (2.10) 18.3 (2.30) 18.3 (1.98) .960
    Median (Min-Max)e 18 (11-30) 18 (11-30) 18 (11-30)
The first time you tried to smoke hookah were you:f
    with friends 869 (97.5) 312 (99.4) 557 (96.5)
    with family 22 (2.5) 2 (0.6) 20 (3.5) .009
The first time you tried to smoke hookah were you:
    in a hookah lounge 453 (59.5) 138 (53.1) 315 (62.9)
    at friend's home 228 (30.0) 95 (36.5) 133 (26.5)
    at home 33 (4.3) 5 (1.9) 28 (5.6)
    at school/college 47 (6.2) 22 (8.5) 25 (5.0) .001
Did you smoke hookah during the past 7 days?
    Yes 104 (17.0) 45 (18.5) 59 (15.9)
    No 509 (83.0) 198 (81.5) 311 (84.1) .406
Did you smoke hookah during the past 30 days?g
    Yes 255 (41.8) 98 (40.7) 157 (42.5)
    No 355 (58.2) 143 (59.3) 212 (57.5) .645
Do you currently smoke hookah daily, weekly, monthly, occasionally or not at all?h
    Daily 7 (0.8) 6 (1.9) 1 (0.2)
    Weekly 46 (5.2) 24 (7.8) 22 (3.8)
    Monthly 120 (13.6) 56 (18.2) 64 (11.2)
    Occasionally 447 (50.8) 161 (52.3) 286 (50.0)
    Not at all 260 (29.5) 61 (19.8) 199 (34.8) <.001
If yes current hookah smoker, did you smoke cigarettes during the past 30 days?
    Yes 97 (18.1)i 47 (22.1) 50 (15.4)
    No 440 (81.9) 166 (77.9) 274 (84.6) .051
What type of hookah tobacco have you ever tried?
    Only flavored 708 (89.4) 230 (74.6) 478 (91.9)
    Only unflavored 41 (5.2) 18 (6.6) 23 (4.4)
    Both flavored/unflavored 43 (5.4) 24 (8.8) 19 (3.7) .003
How many hookah heads do you usually smoke on the day you smoke?j
    Mean (SD) 1.40 (0.76) 1.53 (0.82) 1.31 (0.70) .009
    Median (Min-Max) 1 (.25-7) 1 (.50-5) 1 (.25-7)
How long do you usually smoke hookah on the day you smoke? (minutes)
    Mean (SD) 67.1 (42.47) 65.6 (37.52) 65.1 (45.35) .512
    Median (Min-Max) 60 (2-240) 60 (10-180) 60 (2-240)

Note.

a

p - value from Pearson's chi-square test or t-test, as appropriate, for significance at p < .05. Statistically significant p values are bolded.

b

‘Hookah’ was referred to in the questionnaire as ‘hookah tobacco’.

c

Age 18 years is the age at which one is legally considered an adult in the US, and the minimum age at which individuals can purchase tobacco legally.

d

SD = Standard Deviation.

e

Min-Max = Minimum - Maximum.

f

Other category not in Table: Alone (N = 1), with strangers (N = 2).

g

Past 30 day use was coded “yes” if the response to past 7 day use was “yes”.

h

Daily = at least once each day, Weekly = at least once each week but less than daily, Monthly = at least once a month but less than weekly, and Occasionally = at least once a year but less than monthly.

i

18.1% were ‘current dual smokers’ = past 30 days use of both hookah and cigarettes.

j

A hookah head' was defined in the questionnaire as ‘10 grams of hookah tobacco’.

Some cells with expected count of less than 5 violated the assumptions of the chi-square test.

Due to missing values, some variables do not total the ever hookah users sample N = 970.

When participants first tried to smoke hookah, the majority (97.5%) were with friends, and more than half (59.5%) were at a lounge. A total of 17% reported past 7 days use and 41.8% reported past 30 days use, whom we considered ‘current hookah smokers’, and 18.1% were ‘current dual smokers’ who reported past 30 days use of both hookah and cigarettes. The majority (89.4%) of ever hookah smokers had only tried flavored hookah tobacco. Men and women were similar in overall hookah use initiation and use behaviors.

Lounge Awareness, Use and Support

As data in Table 3 show, the majority of both ever and never hookah smokers first became aware of lounges through friends, passing by lounges, or from media advertising. The majority (85.4%) of ever hookah smokers and 21.2% of never hookah smokers had ever been to a lounge. There were no significant differences between men and women in overall lounge attendance behaviors.

Table 3.

Hookah Lounge Awareness, Use, and Support among Undergraduate Students at a University in San Diego, CA (N = 1332)

All participants
Ever Hookah Smokers
Total N = 1332 Ever Hookah Smokers N = 970 Never Hookah Smokers N = 362 Men N = 344 Women N = 626

N (%) N (%) N (%) pa N (%) N (%) pa
How did you first become aware of hookah lounges?b
    Friends 643 (69.7) 495 (77.8) 148 (51.7) 146 (72.2) 339 (80.7)
    Passing by one 132 (14.3) 79 (12.4) 53 (18.5) 32 (14.8) 47 (11.2)
    Mediac 88 (9.5) 44 (6.9) 44 (15.4) 24 (11.1) 20 (4.8)
    Not aware 35 (3.8) 4 (0.6) 31 (10.8) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.5)
    Family 24 (2.6) 14 (2.2) 10 (3.5) <.001 2 (0.9) 12 (2.9) .007
Have you ever been to a hookah lounge?
    Yes 663 (66.1) 599 (85.4) 64 (21.2) 198 (82.5) 401 (87.0)
    No 340 (33.9) 102 (14.6) 238 (78.8) <.001 42 (17.5) 60 (13.0) .110
How often do you visit hookah lounges?d
    At least Weekly 14 (2.2) 11 (1.9) 3 (4.7) 3 (1.6) 8 (2.1)
    At least Monthly 39 (6.1) 38 (6.6) 1 (1.6) 15 (7.9) 23 (6.0)
    Occasionally 398 (62.6) 372 (65.0) 30 (46.9) 125 (66.1) 247 (64.5)
    Not at all 185 (29.1) 151 (26.4) 34 (53.1) <.001 46 (24.3) 105 (27.4) .744
On a typical hookah lounge visit, how long do you stay in a hookah lounge? (Minutes)
    <60 16 (4.5) 16 (4.7) 0 (0.0) 4 (3.8) 12 (5.1)
    60 91 (25.6) 87 (25.4) 4 (30.8) 28 (26.4) 59 (25.0)
    90 56 (15.8) 56 (16.4) 0 (0.0) 24 (22.6) 32 (13.6)
    120 131 (36.9) 124 (36.3) 7 (53.8) 38 (35.8) 86 (36.4)
    >120 61 (17.2) 59 (17.3) 2 (15.4) .413 12 (11.3) 47 (19.9) .128
    Mean (SD)e 105.2 (42.5) 105.1 (42.7) 108.5 (37.8) 98.9 (34.7) 107.8 (45.7) .047
    Median (Min-Max)f 120 (15-240) 120 (15-240) 120 (60-180) .777 90 (30-180) 120 (15-240)
Which days of the week do you usually visit a hookah lounge? (Select all that apply)
    Mondays-Thursdays (Yes) 64 (9.5) 62 (9.2) 2 (0.3) .046 19 (3.2) 43 (7.4) .663
    Fridays (Yes) 285 (42.3) 274 (42.2) 11 (1.6) <.001 99 (16.7) 175 (29.7) .146
    Saturdays (Yes) 279 (41.5) 269 (41.4) 10 (1.5) <.001 94 (15.9) 175 (29.7) .385
    Sundays (Yes) 45 (6.7) 45 (6.9) 0 (0.0) .018 18 (3.0) 27 (4.6) .307
Which hookah lounge do you usually visit?
    Near my university 213 (50.5) 202 (51.0) 11 (42.3) 74 (57.8) 128 (47.8)
    Not near my university 129 (30.6) 118 (29.8) 11 (42.3) 38 (29.7) 80 (29.9)
    Both equally 80 (19.0) 76 (19.2) 4 (15.4) .406 16 (12.5) 60 (22.4) .047
How far do you live from the nearest hookah lounge?g
    < 5 miles 455 (58.0) 365 (59.6) 90 (52.0) 145 (66.2) 220 (56.0)
    5 - 10 miles 232 (29.6) 177 (28.9) 55 (31.8) 51 (23.3) 126 (32.1)
    > 10 miles 98 (12.5) 70 (11.4) 28 (16.2) .125 23 (10.5) 47 (12.0) .039
How far your university is to the nearest hookah lounge?
    < 5 miles 617 (80.7) 485 (81.4) 132 (78.1) 179 (82.5) 306 (80.7)
    5 - 10 miles 119 (15.6) 92 (15.4) 27 (16.0) 31 (14.3) 61 (16.1)
    > 10 miles 29 (3.8) 19 (3.2) 10 (5.9) .248 7 (3.2) 12 (3.2) .841
Would you support opening more hookah lounges in San Diego?
    Yes 205 (35.0) 202 (50.8) 4 (1.6) 75 (52.1) 127 (50.0)
    No 380 (65.0) 196 (49.2) 184 (98.4) <.001 69 (47.9) 127 (50.0) .690
If Yes, Specify reasons:h
    Why not? 35 (29.4) 35 (30.4) 0 (0.0) 15 (33.3) 20 (26.6)
    Fun/Social 35 (29.4) 35 (30.4) 0 (0.0) 9 (20.0) 26 (37.1)
    Freedom 26 (21.8) 22 (19.1) 4 (100) 8 (17.8) 14 (20.0)
    More variety 23 (19.3) 23 (20.0) 0 (0.0) .002 13 (28.9) 10 (14.3) .120
If No, Specify reasons:h
    Don't need anymore 69 (25.5) 49 (33.8) 20 (15.9) 10 (21.3) 39 (39.8)
    Don't care 66 (24.4) 43 (29.7) 23 (18.3) 15 (31.9) 28 (28.6)
    Don't like hookah 69 (25.5) 30 (20.7) 39 (31.0) 16 (34.0) 14 (14.3)
    Unhealthy/gross 46 (17.0) 17 (11.7) 29 (23.0) 5 (10.6) 12 (12.2)
    Promotes underage smoking 21 (7.7) 6 (4.1) 15 (11.9) <.001 1 (2.1) 5 (5.1) .039
How would you feel if hookah lounges were to shut down?
    Don't care 288 (51.9) 188 (49.2) 100 (57.8) 64 (48.1) 124 (49.8)
    Happy/fine 95 (17.1) 34 (8.9) 61 (35.3) 11 (8.3) 23 (9.2)
    Sad/disappointed 66 (11.9) 64 (16.8) 2 (1.2) 23 (17.3) 41 (16.5)
    Angry/upset 55 (9.9) 53 (13.9) 2 (1.2) 19 (14.3) 34 (13.7)
    Unfair/unnecessary 51 (9.2) 43 (11.3) 8 (4.6) <.001 16 (12.0) 27 (10.8) .989
Would you support anti-hookah tobacco advertisements?
    Yes 289 (46.7) 139 (32.3) 150 (79.4) 40 (24.5) 99 (37.1)
    No 330 (53.3) 291 (67.7) 39 (20.6) <.001 123 (75.5) 168 (62.9) .007
Would you support laws prohibiting smoking hookahs in public places such as parks and restaurants?
    Yes 399 (55.2) 197 (39.7) 202 (89.0) 58 (32.2) 139 (44.0)
    No 324 (44.8) 299 (60.3) 25 (11.0) <.001 122 (67.8) 177 (56.0) .010
If you are around friends who smoke hookah, are you concerned they will expect you to smoke?
    Very/Somewhat concerned 189 (19.7) 102 (14.9) 87 (31.6) 44 (18.9) 58 (12.9)
    Not at all concerned 770 (80.3) 582 (85.1) 188 (68.4) <.001 189 (81.1) 393 (87.1) .036
How bothered do you feel when someone smokes hookah around you?
    Very/Somewhat bothered 301 (32.3) 122 (17.8) 179 (71.9) 38 (15.9) 84 (18.9)
    Not at all bothered 632 (67.7) 562 (82.2) 70 (28.1) <.001 201 (84.1) 361 (81.1) .332

Note.

a

p - value from Pearson's chi-square test or t-test, as appropriate, for significance at p < .05. Statistically significant p values are bolded.

b

A hookah lounge was explained to participants to include other names such as hookah cafés and hookah bars.

c

Media included the following responses: university newspaper, coupon booklet, internet, movies.

d

At least Weekly: at least once each week but less than daily, At least Monthly: at least once a month but less than weekly, and Occasionally: at least once a year but less than monthly.

e

SD = Standard Deviation.

f

Min-Max = Minimum - Maximum.

g

Respondents were instructed to answer this question based on their permanent home address.

h

An open-ended question.

Some cells with expected count of less than 5 violated the assumptions of the chi-square test.

Due to missing values, some variables do not total the ever hookah users sample N = 970.

Participants reported visiting lounges mostly on Fridays and Saturdays and spent an average of 105.2 minutes on a typical lounge visit. More reported usually visiting the lounges that were near their university than the lounges that were not near their university (50.0% vs 30.6%, respectively). More than half of ever (59.6%) and never (52%) hookah smokers reported that they lived less than 5 miles from the nearest lounge; and the majority of ever (81.4%) and never (78.1%) hookah smokers reported that their university was less than 5 miles from the nearest lounge.

Ever hookah smokers were more likely than never hookah smokers to support opening more lounges in San Diego. About one-fourth of respondents who specified reasons for not supporting opening lounges stated that there was no need for more lounges. When asked: “How would you feel if lounges were to shut down?” 42% of ever hookah smokers respondents said “Angry, Sad, or Unfair.” Also, ever hookah smokers were less likely than never smokers to support anti-hookah advertisements or laws prohibiting smoking hookah in public places. Among never hookah smokers, 31.6% were concerned that they were expected to smoke if they were around friends who smoke hookah; and 71.9% were bothered when someone smoked hookah around them.

Friends and Proximity of Lounges to the University

Table 4 shows results of a logistic regression of ever visiting a lounge on awareness of lounges, and distance of the nearest lounge from the university. The adjusted odds of ever visiting a lounge was 4.4 times higher among those who became aware of lounges through friends than those who became aware of lounges through other means. The adjusted odds were 2.1 times higher among participants who reported that the closest lounge to the university was less than 5 miles away than among those who reported that the closest lounge was 5 or more miles away.

Table 4.

Binary Logistic Regression to Predict Ever Hookah Lounge Attendancea among Undergraduate Students at a University in San Diego, CA

Unadjusted ORb 95% CI pc Adjusted ORd 95% CI p
Became aware of hookah loungese
    By friends 4.450 3.294 - 6.011 <.001 4.428 2.733 - 7.176 <.001
    Other reference reference
Distance of nearest hookah lounge to the universityf
    < 5 miles 1.677 1.133 - 2.484 .010 2.109 1.211 - 3.672 .008
    ≥ 5 miles reference reference

Note.

a

Dependent variable: Ever attended a hookah lounge; ‘Yes’ coded ‘1’ and ‘No’ coded ‘0’.

b

OR = Odds Ratio.

c

Statistically significant p values are bolded.

d

Adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and ever hookah use.

e

How did you first become aware of hookah lounges? All response categories before collapsing are found in Table 3.

f

How far your university is to the nearest hookah lounge? Response categories “5 - 10 miles” and “> 10 miles” were collapsed into the single category “≥ 5 miles”.

Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit Test (p = .502); Nagelkerke R2 = .479; N = 639.

Entertainment and Physical Layout of Lounges

Table 5 presents responses to the 2 open-ended questions: ‘In the hookah lounge that you usually visit, what type of entertainment is usually presented?’ and ‘To your recollection describe the interior layout’. Entertainment in lounges was mostly music with a Middle Eastern flare ranging from recorded surround sound music to live bands. Belly dancing on some days, movies and sports television, food, drinks and games such as chess and pool tables were also noted. The interior layout of lounges ranged from a large open space accommodating many patrons to a small 2-room venue. There were counters displaying tea, drinks, pastries, hookahs and hookah tobacco for sale. Comfortable seating was reported ranging from fancy long cushioned couches and pillows to small close tables and chairs. Lounges provided tables dedicated for computer use, thus offering a place to study, smoke hookah, and ‘hang out’ until the early morning hours. The decorations were exotic ranging from alluring dark colors to bright rich colors with drapes and candles. The ambience ranged from dimly lit and cozy ‘like a living room in a house’ to being loud and crowded.

Table 5.

Entertainment and Layout of Hookah Lounges by Ever Hookah Smokers who Ever Attended a Lounge (N = 599)

N (%) Quotes
A. In the hookah lounge that you usually visit, what type of entertainment is usually presented?
Music 162 (62.3) ‘Middle Eastern music, crazy belly dancing music, music over the speakers, surround sound music, music on the televisions, lots of music, light music, loud music, rap music, music videos, stereo music, dancing music, jukebox, DJ, live music, music playlist, live bands, open mic night, singer/song writers’
Belly Dancing /Dancing 31 (11.9) ‘belly dancers on weekends, belly dancing on some days, dance floor, dancing’
Movies /Television 24 (9.2) ‘movies, cd player, some Televisions, Sports Television, plasma Televisions’
Games 15 (5.8) ‘board games, playing cards, chess, pool table’
None 13 (5.0) ‘None, usually nothing, nothing we just sat there, just friends’
Other 15 (5.8) ‘snacks, smoothies, food, drinks, alcohol, full bar, hookah, Arabic comics, poetry reading, I don't go for entertainment’
B. In the hookah lounge that you usually visit, to your recollection describe the interior layout?
Seating 55 (35.5) ‘a lot of comfortable seating, lots of long cushioned couches and lots of comfy pillows, lots of pillows on the ground, window seats with cushions, low cushioned benches, bar stools, lots of small close tables with chairs or booths around them, lots of tables and heat lamps on patio, funky furniture, ottomans, not too fancy just tables and cheap chairs, plastic chairs’
Layout 37 (23.9) ‘big open space with seats lining the walls, coffee house-ish, cafe setting, indoor area with a dance floor, VIP section, it is mostly an open air huge patio, it's pretty small, tightly spaced, it is tiny with two main rooms and two patios, a small two-room place, just like a restaurant, pizza place with pool tables, it has some tables for computers to sit at and study and eat, there is a counter to order hookah and drinks and there is another room with couches and tables for studying or hanging out, there is a bar, a counter for coffee and teas and pastries, next to the cashier is a display case of hookahs and tobacco for sale to smoke at home’
Decoration 32 (20.6) ‘Middle Eastern decoration, Arabian, Egyptian décor, Southeast Asia theme, Indian motif with dark jewel tones and rich fabrics and lots of gold accents, red curtains, drape-y things, very bohemian, exotic decorations, very artsy, bamboo walls, paintings, artworks, orange walls, red walls with black draping, dark and brick walls, candles, interesting lamps, dark colors with bright accents, bright colors, mirrors, bead curtains, Turkish carpets, they had a glass bar and a snake in it’
Ambience 17 (11.0) ‘colorful with dim lighting, dark, smoky, beautiful, casual, mellow, pretty, laid back, soft and plush, very chill and cozy, warm and comfortable, like a living room in a house, lively, very hippie, lights everywhere, crowded, loud, loud music, loud foreign music’

Due to missing values, variables do not total the sample size 599.

Facilitators to Visiting Lounges

Tables 6 presents responses to the 2 open-ended questions: “What do you enjoy most about visiting a hookah lounge?” and “What are the things that make it easy for you to visit a hookah lounge?” Respondents most enjoyed the relaxed and fun atmosphere where they could socialize with friends and meet people while smoking a variety of hookah tobacco flavors for long periods of time. What made it easy for them to visit a lounge was mainly having friends wanting to go or offering to pay for the hookah, as well as the many lounges in close proximity to campus or home.

Table 6.

Facilitators to Attending Hookah Lounges by Ever Hookah Smokers who Ever Attended a Lounge (N = 599)

N (%) Quotes
A. What do you enjoy most about visiting a hookah lounge?
Atmosphere 110 (34.2) ‘ambiance, unique, very mellow, relaxed environment, chill environment, laid-back atmosphere, atmosphere is comfortable, calm atmosphere for socializing, everyone is friendly, the atmosphere is inviting, fun atmosphere, good atmosphere, enjoying the atmosphere, party atmosphere’
Socializing with friends 82 (25.3) ‘bonding time with friends, get together with friends, chillin’ with friends, un-wind with friends all in a circle, sharing the experience with friends, something to do with friends, good place to spend time with friends, spending time with amigos’
Socializing with people 44 (13.7) ‘social outing, socialize with strangers, the intimate social scene, girls, women, easy to meet people, diverse crowd, people watching’
Hanging out / Relaxing 43 (13.4) ‘chilling, it is relaxing, a nice place to hang out, nice way to spend a night, do something different, it's something to do when you are bored, getting out of the house, being able to get off campus, somewhere to go, being somewhere other than a bar, since I can't go to bars, able to stay for a long time and relax, you don't have to be 21 and you can hang out until late (2am),’
Smoking Hookah / Flavors 27 (8.4) ‘smoking hookah of course, flavors of tobacco, variety of flavors, lots of different flavors, tasting the different flavors of hookah, I love the taste of a hookah, the smell, better hookah than at a friend's, they have better tobacco than my friends usually buy, no work to setup or clean the hookah, the tobacco and rental are inexpensive, you're surrounded by people who also like to smoke, you don't feel you're bothering anyone who doesn't like it’
Food / Drink 10 (3.1) ‘food, tea, coffee’
Music / Belly dancers 6 (1.9) ‘music, trippy music, belly dancing, dancing, enjoying entertainment’
B. What are the things that make it easy for you to visit a hookah lounge?
Friends 69 (44.5) ‘friend dragging me there, friends wanting to go, when a big group is going, when a friend drives or when a friend pays, I just go if that's where the events of the evening are, when I'm not smoking I don't pay, I know the owner’
Location 55 (35.5) ‘a lot of hookah lounges are around, there are so many close by, close proximity to campus, it's close to school, it's very close to my house, it is a block away, I live next door to a hookah lounge, there is one across the street, close location can even study while smoking, near where I live so I don't have to make my own hookah, nearby location and can be easily found if needed’
Other 31 (19.8) ‘I am of age, I own a car and I'm old enough to go anywhere, having money, the time they are open, late hours, don't stink up your own couches, not owning a hookah, not wanting to set up your own hookah, when family visit we make it a point to go together, if there is a patio and I can breathe’

Due to missing values, variables do not total the sample size 599.

Barriers to Visiting Lounges

Tables 7 presents responses to the 2 open-ended questions: “What bothers you the most about visiting a hookah lounge?” and “What are some of the barriers to visiting a hookah lounge?” Respondents were bothered the most with the smoke, followed by other patrons who were either annoying or became annoying because they became high. Barriers to visiting lounges included the cost of smoking hookah, waiting in line due to crowded lounges, the age limit of 18 years to enter a lounge, and driving to lounges.

Table 7.

Barriers to Attending Hookah Lounges by Ever Hookah Smokers who Ever Attended a Lounge (N = 599)

N (%) Quotes
A. What bothers you the most about visiting a hookah lounge?
Smoke 60 (28.6) ‘very smoky inside, thick smoke, too much smoke in the air, smoke in a closed area, I don't always smoke and the smoke bothers me when I'm not smoking, the stench when I walk out, stinks of perfumed tobacco, lack of outside air when indoors, no air, you all smell bad after smoking, smoke stick to my clothes, secondhand smoke all the time, not knowing if the smoke is bad for me’
Other patrons 40 (19.0) ‘annoying people, belligerent drunk people, fights, people get weird, the high people, the altered states, obnoxious people bugging you, many young people, the 18 year old kids, underage teens, when people are looking at me, a lot of other people trying to see what flavor your hookah is’
Expensive / Cost 35 (16.7) ‘cost, expensive, overpriced, pointless waste of money, having to buy a drink, expensive food and drinks, high cost or having to pay for one hookah per two people, it's a lot more expensive than owning your own hookah’
Crowded 27 (12.9) ‘crowded, too many people, not enough space, the wait time to get in, cold patios, its sometimes difficult to find a place to sit inside and then you have to sit outside this sucks especially when its cold outside, people wanting to sit there for hours, more fun at home where you can blow o's’
Nothing 24 (11.4) ‘nothing’
Noisy 15 (7.1) ‘can be too noisy, loud noises, it's too loud sometimes, loud music’
Sharing 9 (4.3) ‘it is filthy and disgusting to touch something with your mouth that someone else did, people sharing and passing the same mouthpiece around, sharing the hookah with people I don't know, unclean hookah, feels dirty’
B. What are some of the barriers to visiting a hookah lounge?
Expensive / Cost 44 (28.2) ‘expensive, cover charge for under 21, having hookahs in my home, don't feel like spending money, lack of money, too much money just to smoke’
Crowded 42 (26.9) ‘too crowded, busy nights, limited space, it takes forever to get a table, not enough seating capacity if it is a busy night, sometimes it's just too congested when there's no outside sitting or its full outside, waiting in line is annoying, waiting in line if you get there too late, cold weather on the patio’
Age limit 19 (12.2) ‘age limit, age of friends, age requirement, everyone must be 18+ in your group, if you forget your ID no admittance, need valid ID, fence and bouncers at the door’
Transportation 17 (10.9) ‘transportation, driving, don't have car’
Nothing 15 (9.6) ‘nothing’
Other 19 (12.2) ‘bad for health, enclosed patio, too much smoke, no air, some there is no food, I don't like to be around smokers because it makes me want to smoke, my husband doesn't like smoking so I only go without him which is not often anymore’

Due to missing values, variables do not total the sample size 599.

DISCUSSION

This study adds important findings on hookah use behaviors and factors influencing hookah lounge attendance among undergraduate students at a US university.

Hookah Initiation and Use

Irrespective of the respondents’ sex, more than one-fourth (28.1%) first tried to smoke hookah tobacco at an age younger than 18 years. The 2014 US Surgeon General's report found that nicotine use by youths in any form is unsafe.38 However, national surveys revealed that adolescents are experimenting with hookah tobacco.39-41 The 2013 US National Youth Tobacco Survey showed that 15.1% of boys and 13.5% of girls in high schools reported ever hookah use,40 and between 2011 and 2014 high school students’ current use of cigarettes decreased from 15.8% to 9.2%, whereas current hookah use doubled from 4.1% to 9.4%. This resulted in an overall estimated total of 1.6 million hookah youth users in 2014.41 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that exposure to the addictive drug nicotine during adolescence, regardless of mode of delivery, might have lasting adverse consequences for brain development,37 causes addiction,42 and might lead to sustained tobacco use.38,40 The CDC's conclusions are based on cigarette use, so specific research is needed to demonstrate their applicability to hookah tobacco use. Meanwhile, continuous surveil-lance of hookah tobacco use by youths is crucial, and including hookah use in ongoing tobacco control strategies in high schools is warranted.

Ever hookah use was reported by 72.8% of the participants, and current hookah use by 41.8% of ever hookah users. Our findings were higher than rates reported in random samples of college students, 61%-15.4% ever use and 20%-6% current use,6-10 perhaps because the university was required to name the emailed survey ‘hookah survey’, which may have inclined respondents’ response rate to be higher among ever than never hookah smokers. Furthermore, during the time period the survey was administered there were at least 2 lounges across the street from the university.

Dual tobacco products use among the youths is emerging in the US.7,11,43 We found that 71.6% of ever hookah users were also ‘ever dual tobacco users’ who also reported ever cigarette use. Also, 18.1% of current hookah smokers were ‘current dual tobacco users’ who reported current cigarette use. Current dual tobacco use was also reported in 2 studies among university students in North Carolina and Florida that found that 55.4% and 35.2% of current hookah users, respectively, were also current cigarette users.7,43 Nationally, the 2009-2010 US ACHA-NCHA II found that 56.6% of current hookah users reported non-daily cigarette use, and 12.7% reported daily cigarette use. 11

Never cigarette smokers are becoming at risk of experimenting with hookah tobacco.3,7,16,43 Hookah tobacco could be the first and only form of tobacco used.3,7,16,43 We found that 28.4% of ever hookah users never tried cigarettes. Similarly, 28.8% and 22% of current hookah users in university students in Florida and North Carolina, respectively, had never tried a cigarette.7,43 Nationally, the 2009-2010 US ACHA-NCHA II found that 30.8% of current hookah users never smoked a cigarette.11 This suggests the need to include exclusive hookah use and dual hookah and cigarette use in ongoing national monitoring and tobacco control measures, particularly among undergraduate college students.

Lounges Attendance Behaviors

We found that 59.5% of ever hookah smokers first tried hookah at a lounge, and the majority (85.4%) have ever been to one. Participants reported spending about 2 hours during their typical lounge visit, and smokers smoked for an average of one hour on the day they smoked. Hookah smokers may smoke less frequently per day than cigarette smokers, but they smoke for longer periods with deeper inhalations, and therefore, are in jeopardy of intense exposure to hookah tobacco smoke.44 The average inhalation volumes were reported at about 530 ml for single hookah puffs versus about 35-60 ml for single cigarette puffs indicating that hookah smoking sessions generate lots of smoke.44,45 Smoke was most frequently reported by our participants as what bothered them the most about visiting a lounge.

A portion (21.2%) of never hookah smokers in our study had been to a lounge. Patrons of lounges, both those who smoke and those who do not smoke, are at risk for exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS), an indoor toxic air contaminant, from both tobacco smoke and emissions from hookah charcoal combustion.44-46 For example, uptake of benzene (a toxic constituent of hookah tobacco and charcoal), increased significantly in hookah smokers following smoking in lounges.22,47

California was the first state to prohibit smoking on trains, planes, buses, public buildings, workplaces, restaurants and bars.48 However, California and many states in the US with smoke-free workplace laws continue to have some exemptions that enable lounges to allow smoking inside their establishments by operating as businesses qualified as tobacco retail stores, tobacco bars, private clubs, or owner-operated businesses.49,50 These commercial venues have been operating throughout the US, providing opportunities for non-smokers to initiate smoking hookah tobacco.16,51,52 It is urgent that states and local jurisdictions reconsider exempting lounges from clean indoor air legislations in order to reduce the proliferation of these venues that offer easy and enticing access to smoking tobacco using attractive devices, and exposing patrons as well as employees of lounges to tobacco and charcoal-related toxicants.49

Facilitators to Attending Lounges

Friends facilitating lounges attendance

We found that the majority of ever hookah smokers were with friends when first tried to smoke hookah, and more than two-thirds first become aware of lounges through friends. Ever hookah smokers also reported that socializing with friends was what they enjoyed most about visiting a lounge, and friends made it easy for them to visit a lounge by either driving them to a lounge or paying for cost of visiting a lounge. Studies of college students show that ‘socializing with friends’ is a strong predictor of hookah use.2,32 California's successful tobacco control efforts have worked to change the social norms around the use of tobacco to create an environment in which tobacco is less acceptable.53 It is important that such tobacco control strategies include efforts to change social norms to make hookah tobacco less acceptable, particularly because hookah smokers believe that smoking hookah is less harmful than cigarettes.2

Proximity of lounges to colleges

Our findings suggest that having lounges close to a university makes it more likely that students will visit lounges. We also found that the majority of ever and never hookah users reported a lounge within 5 miles of the university, and half usually visited a lounge near the university. Respondents felt that there were many lounges around the university, and the close proximity of lounges to the university made it easy for them to visit.

A study of college students from 8 North Carolina universities found that current hookah use was associated with having a lounge within a 10-mile radius of the campus, and that the 3 schools with the highest hookah use rates had at least one lounge in the community near campus.7 Another study comparing 2 college campuses found that the campus with the higher hookah use rate had several establishments that serve hookah near the college campus.52 Efforts to reduce easy access to hookah tobacco by youth should include reducing the number of lounges per city, and enacting regulations prohibiting issuing business licenses to open lounges within close proximity to universities.

Lounge marketing and media

Our participants reported that they became aware of lounges from the media including free print media, the internet and movies.

Free print media

Free print media include ads in the university newspaper and in student coupon booklets. The university newspaper is distributed free in locations throughout the campus. Also, each quarter, 15,000 paper copies of student coupon booklets are printed and distributed free of charge and directly into the hands of university students.54 Students also can download these ads from their website.54 On several visits to the campus where this study was conducted we picked up the university newspaper and found lounge ads advertising close proximity to the university with discount coupons to visit a lounge. We also were handed student coupon booklets as we were walking towards the entrance of the university campus and found lounge ads and discount coupons. Influential boards of universities should make efforts to ban lounge advertisements in university newspapers and coupon booklets distributed on campus.

Social media

The social media on the Internet constitutes an increasing proportion of our social ecology, and especially that of youth, who are the most ready adopters of the new modes of communication, and the most heavily targeted by hookah promotions and inducements.55 Social media include social networks such as Facebook or Twitter to connect and interact with friends and share videos. Compared to cigarette-related YouTube videos, hookah-related videos are more likely to portray tobacco smoking as positive, and less likely to depict adverse health effects of smoking, anti-smoking messages or cessation techniques.56 One study showed that hookah users had references to hookah on their social media profiles, and were exposed to content about hookah tobacco products posted by friends in their social media network.57 Including social media in the design and evaluation of anti-smoking campaigns for hookah is needed.

Broadcast media

California's tobacco control program has been partnering with all of the major motion picture studios to place California's anti-smoking television commercials on millions of youth-rated DVD movies that contain images of smoking.53 It is urgent that California and other states include anti-smoking commercials for hookah in this effort.

Entertainment and other attractive features of lounges

To appeal to varied interests, and thus, maintain patronage, lounge atmospheres range from calm days to loud, lively music and dancing days, with music selections spanning none, soft, rap, and ‘crazy belly dancing music’. Lounges are catering to students by providing tables dedicated for computer use to do school work while smoking hookah until the early morning hours.

Lounges were concurrently offering food, alcohol, tea and coffee. This was consistent with findings indicating that owners of lounges often advertise via the Internet that they offer food, alcohol, free Internet access, dancing, and live music, and allude to an atmosphere that is pleasurable, relaxed and entertaining.50

In Middle Eastern countries, allowing hookah smoking in restaurants and cafes that serve food and drinks had contributed to an increase in hookah use.50,58 Efforts to control the US lounges should include not allowing lounges additional attractive features, such as food and alcohol, that may help prompt experimentation and sustain continued use.

Barriers to Attending Lounges

Cost of smoking hookah

Our participants tried to save money by having friends drive them and/or pay for hookah tobacco. The cost of smoking hookah made it difficult for some participants to visit a lounge. Such perceived barriers suggest raising excise taxes on hookah tobacco products to increase the burden of smoking hookah tobacco, and reduce its use by youths. Studies on cigarettes showed adolescents and young adults were likely to reduce tobacco use when prices increase.59,60

Crowded lounges

It is alarming that respondents felt that lounges were crowded and participants had to wait in line to enter a lounge. Limiting the number of lounges per city, thereby reducing the density of lounges within certain geographic areas, may strengthen this barrier to visiting lounges.59 Zoning ordinance regulators are encouraged to address the phenomena of the high density of lounges within their cities as an approach to reducing the spread of lounges.

Legal age to enter a lounge

In California, the legal age to enter a lounge is 18 years, and to enter a bar is 21 years.61,62 Attending lounges until late hours was appealing to some of our participants, ages 18 to 21 years, because they cannot visit bars due to age restrictions. This suggests raising the legal age to purchase hookah tobacco and enter a lounge from 18 years to 21 years. States and counties should also promote establishments where college aged adults can meet and socialize in smoke-free environments.

Limitations

We employed a cross-sectional design for this study which limits our ability to establish causality. The response rate of 13.4% was low, potentially compromising the external validity of the results; however, this is typical of Web-based surveys.63 Due to skip patterns in the questionnaire, valuable information about never hookah smokers may have been omitted. Future studies should include a larger sample size of never hookah smokers to identify points of intervention to curb hookah initiation and lounge attendance. Length of time needed to complete the survey (30 minutes) may have resulted in missing data. Because hookah use is emerging in the US, we developed our own hookah questionnaire; therefore, conducting validation studies of hookah use questionnaires to be used in US populations is encouraged. Many of the recommendations in the discussion section to control the spread of lounges were based on small sample sizes from open-ended questions in Tables 5-7; we suggest that future research collect quantitative data on larger samples informed by our qualitative results. Because hookah use is emerging and changing rapidly in the US, the time elapsed since the collection of these data is another limitation. However, our findings fill a gap in knowledge about lounge attendance, thereby informing points of intervention to reduce the spread of lounges and hookah tobacco smoking. Moreover, due to the lack of change in laws and regulations governing hookah lounges, since this study was conducted, its implications remain relevant.

Conclusion and Implications

Adolescents and young adults are susceptible to experimenting with hookah tobacco. Continuous monitoring of hookah use at the national level among all age groups, particularly adolescents and young adults, is warranted. Meanwhile, there is sufficient evidence about the harmful effects of hookah use to warrant designing, implementing, and evaluating high school and college-based national public health anti-hookah tobacco education campaigns to include peer education, and the social, print and broadcast media.

Hookah lounges provide their patrons hookah tobacco to smoke in comfortable exotic settings with food and drinks accompanied by entertainment, or a relaxing place to study with friends while smoking hookah. To reduce the spread and popularity of lounges, states and local jurisdictions are encouraged to include lounges in clean indoor air legislation, ban hookah tobacco flavors, not allow lounges additional attractive services such as food and alcohol, prohibit lounges from opening in close proximity to universities, reduce the density of lounges in cities via zoning ordinances, increase taxes on hookah tobacco, and raise the age of admission for lounges to 21 years.

Human Subjects Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of San Diego State University. Electronic informed consent for all study procedures was obtained before data collection.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Age First Tried Hookah Tobacco Smoking among Undergraduate Students at a University in San Diego, CA

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (FAMRI), under grant number YCSA 54520 to Nada O. F. Kassem; and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), under grants numbers 5R01HL103684 and 5R01CA138192 to Melbourne F. Hovell. We thank the students who volunteered to participate in this study.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Statement

All authors of this article declare they have no conflicts of interest.

Contributor Information

Nada O. F. Kassem, Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health (CBEACH), San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA..

Sheila R. Jackson, Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health (CBEACH), San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA..

Marie Boman-Davis, National University, San Diego, CA..

Noura O. Kassem, Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health (CBEACH), San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA..

Sandy Liles, Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health (CBEACH), San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA..

Reem M. Daffa, Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health (CBEACH), San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA..

Roxana Yasmin, Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health (CBEACH), San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA..

Hala Madanat, Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA..

Melbourne F. Hovell, Center for Behavioral Epidemiology and Community Health (CBEACH), San Diego State University Research Foundation, San Diego, CA..

References

  • 1.World Health Organization (WHO) WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic, 2011: warning about the dangers of tobacco. [July 15, 2015];Executive Summary. Available at: http:// whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/WHO_NMH_TFI_11.3_eng.pdf.
  • 2.Akl EA, Ward KD, Bteddini D, et al. The allure of the waterpipe: a narrative review of factors affecting the epidemic rise in waterpipe smoking among young persons globally. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 1):i13–i21. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051906. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Maziak W, Taleb ZB, Bahelah R, et al. The global epidemiology of waterpipe smoking. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 1):i3–i12. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Grekin ER, Ayna D. Waterpipe smoking among college students in the United States: a review of the literature. J Am Coll Health. 2012;60(3):244–249. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2011.589419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.American College Health Association . American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Undergraduate Students Reference Group Executive Summary Spring 2014. American College Health Association; Hanover, MD: 2014. [July 15, 2015]. Available at: http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/NCHA-II_WEB-PAPER_SPRING2014_UNDERGRAD_REFERENCEGROUP_EXECUTIVESUMMARY.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Eissenberg T, Ward KD, Smith-Simone S, Maziak W. Waterpipe tobacco smoking on a U.S. College campus: prevalence and correlates. J Adolesc Health. 2008;42(5):526–529. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.10.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sutfin EL, McCoy TP, Reboussin BA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of waterpipe tobacco smoking by college students in North Carolina. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;115(1-2):131–136. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.01.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Noonan D, Kulbok P, Yan G. Intention to smoke tobacco using a waterpipe among students in a southeastern U.S. College. Public Health Nurs. 2011;28(6):494–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2011.00945.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Braun RE, Glassman T, Wohlwend J, et al. Hookah use among college students from a midwest university. J Community Health. 2012;37(2):294–298. doi: 10.1007/s10900-011-9444-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nuzzo E, Shensa A, Kim KH, et al. Associations between hookah tobacco smoking knowledge and hookah smoking behavior among US college students. Health Educ Res. 2013;28(1):92–100. doi: 10.1093/her/cys095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Haider MR, Salloum RG, Islam F, et al. Factors associated with smoking frequency among current waterpipe smokers in the United States: findings from the National College Health Assessment II. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;153:359–363. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.05.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.American Lung Association [July 15, 2015];An emerging deadly trend: waterpipe tobacco use. 2007 Available at: http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.pdf.
  • 13.Khater AE, Abd El-Aziz NS, Al-Sewaidan HA, Chaouachi K. Radiological hazards of narghile (hookah, shisha, goza) smoking: activity concentrations and dose assessment. J Environ Radioact. 2008;99(12):1808–1814. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schubert J, Luch A, Schulz TG. Waterpipe smoking: analysis of the aroma profile of flavored waterpipe tobaccos. Talanta. 2013;115:665–674. doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2013.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sepetdjian E, Abdul Halim R, Salman R, et al. Phenolic compounds in particles of mainstream waterpipe smoke. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(6):1107–1112. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kassem NOF, Kassem NO, Jackson SR, et al. Arab-American hookah smokers: initiation, and pros and cons of hookah use. Am J Health Behav. 2015;39(5):680–697. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.39.5.10. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.39.5.10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.US Food and Drug Administration Tobacco products. [July 15, 2015];Regulating Tobacco - An FDA Perspective. 2014 Available at: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm171683.htm.
  • 18.US Food and Drug Administration Tobacco products. [July 15, 2015];Youth & Tobacco. 2014 Available at: http://www.fda.gov/tobaccoproducts/protectingkidsfromtobacco/default.htm.
  • 19.Aboaziza E, Eissenberg T. Waterpipe tobacco smoking: what is the evidence that it supports nicotine/tobacco dependence? Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 1):i44–i53. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051910. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jacob P, 3rd, Abu Raddaha AH, Dempsey D, et al. Comparison of nicotine and carcinogen exposure with water-pipe and cigarette smoking. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013;22(5):765–772. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-12-1422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Al Ali R, Rastam S, Ibrahim I, et al. A comparative study of systemic carcinogen exposure in waterpipe smokers, cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Tob Control. Mar. 2015;24(2):125–127. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kassem NOF, Kassem N, Jackson S, et al. Benzene up-take in hookah smokers and non-smokers attending hookah social events: regulatory implications. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(12):2793–2809. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.El-Zaatari ZM, Chami HA, Zaatari GS. Health effects associated with waterpipe smoking. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 1):i31–i43. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Roskin J, Aveyard P. Canadian and English students’ beliefs about waterpipe smoking: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2009;(9):10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kumar SR, Davies S, Weitzman M, Sherman S. A review of air quality, biological indicators and health effects of second-hand waterpipe smoke exposure. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 1):i54–i59. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Noonan D. Exemptions for hookah bars in clean indoor air legislation: a public health concern. Public Health Nurs. 2010;27(1):49–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2009.00826.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Primack BA, Hopkins M, Hallett C, et al. US health policy related to hookah tobacco smoking. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(9):e47–51. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300838. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Haddad L, El-Shahawy O, Ghadban R, et al. Waterpipe smoking and regulation in the United States: a comprehensive review of the literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12(6):6115–6135. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Maziak W. The waterpipe: time for action. Addiction. 2008;103(11):1763–1767. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02327.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rezk-Hanna M, Macabasco-O'Connell A, Woo M. Hookah smoking among young adults in southern California. Nurs Res. 2014;63(4):300–306. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Aljarrah K1, Ababneh ZQ, Al-Delaimy WK. Perceptions of hookah smoking harmfulness: predictors and characteristics among current hookah users. Tob Induc Dis. 2009;5(1):16. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-5-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rahman S, Chang L, Hadgu S, et al. Prevalence, knowledge, and practices of hookah smoking among university students, Florida, 2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E214. doi: 10.5888/pcd11.140099. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cho H, LaRose R. Privacy issues in Internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review. 1999;17(4):421–434. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Asfar T, Ward KD, Eissenberg T, Maziak W. Comparison of patterns of use, beliefs, and attitudes related to water-pipe between beginning and established smokers. BMC Public Health. 2005;5:19. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-5-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Maziak W, Ward KD, Afifi Soweid RA, Eissenberg T. Standardizing questionnaire items for the assessment of waterpipe tobacco use in epidemiological studies. Public Health. 2005;119(5):400–404. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2004.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. US Department of Health and Human Services; Atlanta, GA: 2005. [July 15, 2015]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/2005brfss.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2005 National YRBS Data User's Manual. US Department of Health and Human Services; Atlanta, GA: 2005. [July 15, 2015]. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). 2005 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). Available at: ftp://ftp.cdc.gov/pub/data/yrbs/2005/YRBS_2005_National_User_Guide.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC [July 15, 2015];The health consequences of smoking - 50 years of progress. 2014 Available at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/50th-anniversary/index.htm.
  • 39.Amrock SM, Gordon T, Zelikoff JT, Weitzman M. Hookah use among adolescents in the United States: results of a national survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2014;6(2):231–237. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntt160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Arrazola RA, Neff LJ, Kennedy SM, et al. Tobacco Use among middle and high school students - United States, 2013. [July 15, 2015];MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014 63(45):1021–1026. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm6345.pdf. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Arrazola RA, Singh T, Corey CG, et al. Tobacco use among middle and high school students - United States, 2011-2014. [July 15, 2015];MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 64(14):381–385. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6414a3.htm?s_cid=mm6414a3_w. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC [July 15, 2015];The Health Consequences of Smoking: Nicotine Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon General. 1988 Available at: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/NN/B/B/Z/D.
  • 43.Barnett TE, Smith T, He Y, et al. Evidence of emerging hookah use among university students: a cross-sectional comparison between hookah and cigarette use. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:302. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Shihadeh A, Azar S, Antonios C, Haddad A. Towards a topographical model of narghile water-pipe café smoking: a pilot study in a high socioeconomic status neighborhood of Beirut, Lebanon. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2004;79:75–82. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2004.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kumar SR, Davies S, Weitzman M, Sherman S. A review of air quality, biological indicators and health effects of secondhand waterpipe smoke exposure. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 1):i54–i59. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-052038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Schubert J, Müller FD, Schmidt R, et al. Waterpipe smoke: source of toxic and carcinogenic VOCs, phenols and heavy metals? Arch Toxicol. 2014 Sep 24; doi: 10.1007/s00204-014-1372-x. DOI: 10.1007/s00204-014-1372-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.St Helen G, Benowitz NL, Dains KM, et al. Nicotine and carcinogen exposure after water pipe smoking in hookah bars. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23(6):1055–1066. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.California Department of Public Health [July 15, 2015];California's award-winning tobacco control program marks. Number: 09-25. 2009. Available at: http://www.cdph.ca.gov/Pages/NR2009-25.aspx.
  • 49.Noonan D. Exemptions for hookah bars in clean indoor air legislation: a public health concern. Public Health Nurs. 2010;27(1):49–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.2009.00826.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Primack BA, Rice KR, Shensa A, et al. U.S. Hookah tobacco smoking establishments advertised on the internet. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(2):150–156. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sterling KL, Mermelstein R. Examining hookah smoking among a cohort of adolescent ever smokers. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(12):1202–1209. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr146. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ward KD, Eissenberg T, Gray JN, et al. Characteristics of U.S. waterpipe users: a preliminary report. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007;9(12):1339–1346. doi: 10.1080/14622200701705019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC [July 15, 2015];Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs. 2014 Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/pdfs/2014/comprehensive.pdf.
  • 54. [July 15, 2015];Student Stretch Dollar. Available at: http://studentdollarstretcher.com/.
  • 55.Khalil J, Heath RL, Nakkash RT, Afifi RA. The tobacco health nexus? Health messages in narghile advertisements. Tob Control. 2009;18(5):420–421. doi: 10.1136/tc.2009.030148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Carroll MV, Shensa A, Primack BA. A comparison of cigarette- and hookah-related videos on YouTube. Tob Control. 2013;22(5):319–323. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Link AR, Cawkwell PB, Shelley DR, Sherman SE. An exploration of online behaviors and social media use among hookah and electronic-cigarette users. Addict Behav Rep. 2015;2:37–40. doi: 10.1016/j.abrep.2015.05.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Nakkash R, Khalil J, Afıfı RA. The rise in narghile (shisha, hookah) waterpipe tobacco smoking: a qualitative study of perceptions of smokers and non-smokers. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:315. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gathuru IM, Tarter RE, Klein-Fedyshin M. Review of hookah tobacco smoking among college students: policy implications and research recommendations. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2015;9:1–9. doi: 10.3109/00952990.2015.1043738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Morris DS, Fiala SC, Pawlak R. Opportunities for policy interventions to reduce youth hookah smoking in the United States. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E165. doi: 10.5888/pcd9.120082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.California's Clean Air Project [July 15, 2015];A Statewide Project of ETR Associates. 2005 Available at: http://www.sandiego-county.gov/hhsa/programs/phs/documents/CCAPH-ookahFactSheet.pdf.
  • 62.State of California [July 15, 2015];Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Quick summary of selected laws for retail licensees. ABC-608 (5/04). Available at: http://www.abc.ca.gov/FORMS/ABC608.pdf.
  • 63.Cook C, Heath F, Thompson R. A meta-analysis of response rates in Web-or Internet-based surveys. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60(6):821–836. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES