Skip to main content
Tobacco Induced Diseases logoLink to Tobacco Induced Diseases
. 2018 Mar 16;16:07. doi: 10.18332/tid/82926

Tobacco use: prevalence, pattern, and predictors, among those aged 15-49 years in Nigeria, a secondary data analysis

Elias C Aniwada 1,, Nwachinemere D Uleanya 2, Edmund N Ossai 3, Emmanuel A Nwobi 1, Michael Anibueze 4
PMCID: PMC6659557  PMID: 31516407

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use is a major global public health challenge. It is a risk factor for most leading causes of death, and its health impacts span from conception to adulthood. This study aims to analyse tobacco use data from the 2013 Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), assessing the prevalence, pattern, and socio-demographic correlates of tobacco use among Nigerians aged 15-49 years.

METHODS

A secondary data analysis involving 2013 NDHS was done. Data on 17 322 respondents were extracted from 36 800 participants. This number represents respondents with complete data on outcome variables of interest. Primary Sampling Unit defined on the basis of Enumeration Areas from the 2006 census was used. Head of selected household, all men and women aged 15-49 were studied. Data was collected using questionnaires. A chi-squared test and a binary logistic regression model were used in the analysis.

RESULTS

Generally, 6.6% of the respondents smoked cigarettes, 1.7% used snuff, 0.4% smoked pipe, and 0.2% chewed tobacco. Based on gender, 6.6% males and 6.3% females smoked cigarettes, 0.3% males and 0.4% females smoked cigarettes as well as used snuff. Predictors of cigarette use included being in age group 25-34 years (AOR 5.8; 95% CI 4.6-7.2), being ≥35 years (AOR 4.1; 95% CI 4.1-6.8), having attained primary education (AOR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2-1.8), living in north region (AOR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1-1.5), as well as being a Moslem (AOR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5-0.7).

CONCLUSIONS

A minor proportion of both genders uses tobacco with the commonest form being cigarettes. The commonest combination was cigarettes and snuff, even on stratification by gender. The identified predictors were age in categories, educational level and religion.

Keywords: prevalence, pattern, predictors, tobacco use, Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

Tobacco use has reached high epidemic proportions, and is a major global public health challenge. It is a major risk factor for most leading causes of death worldwide1, and kills many of its users2. This has made tobacco the leading threat to the global economy causing loss of productivity, plus pain, grief and misery3. Globally, tobacco use is a major cause of avoidable and premature mortality and morbidity, accounting for about 6 million deaths4,5. One person dies every six seconds due to tobacco related disease. Of these deaths, 75% occur in low and middle income countries where more than 80% of the world’s smokers, including Nigeria’s, live4.

The death toll from tobacco is estimated to reach over 8 million deaths per year by 2030, and if unchecked, tobacco could kill over 1 billion people in the 21st century6,7. It is estimated that 100 million premature deaths occurred globally in the 20th century, due to tobacco smoking. Equally, tobacco smokers are believed to lose one decade of their life expectancy, when compared to people who have never smoked8.

The Global Adult Tobacco Survey report for Nigeria shows that 4.5 million (5.6%) adults aged 15 years or older currently smoke (10.0% men and 1.1% women), while 6.4 million (29.3%) of adults were exposed to second-hand smoke during visits to public places11. The Global Youth Tobacco Survey of Nigeria 2008 showed that one in five students aged 13-15 years had ever experimented with cigarette smoking, and about one in ten students currently smoked cigarettes12. In a study among Pharmacy students in Lagos, Nigeria, the current smoking prevalence was low at 5.5%13. In Nigeria, 7 in 10 current smokers planned to or were thinking about quitting; and 6 in 10 male smokers who visited a health care provider in the previous 12 months were advised to quit11.

Several studies have documented that tobacco use and smoking are associated with some socio-demographic factors including; age, gender, marital status, education, employment, occupation, religion, ethnicity and place of residence (urban/rural)1-3. A study in Nepal documented that the use of any form of tobacco was significantly associated with respondents’ age, marital status, educational status, occupation, environment and watching television. The study found that; those aged 36-49 years were about 2 times more likely to use any form of tobacco than the younger age group 15-24 years; men married or in a relationship were about 2 times more likely to use tobacco. Men with no education (laborers) were about 4 times more likely than those that had education. However, watching television at least once weekly was found to reduce the risk of smoking3. Another study found that prevalence amongst men was significantly higher than in women for any type of tobacco use (56.5% and 19.6%, respectivley), older adult, men, lesser education, and lower wealth quintile were more likely to use all forms of tobacco2.

Similarly studies also reported that poor people are more likely to smoke more, less willing to quit smoking and more likely to die from smoking than people in the highest socio-economic groups4-7. The same trend is observed in initiation, as the likelihood that a young person will start smoking is higher in less privileged groups8. The identified rising social inequality of smoking and the associated health impacts were attributable to the age of initiation of smoking6,7,9.

In previous studies involving the use of tobacco in Nigeria, representative data for the whole country were not used. It was either that residents in big cities or suburbs, adolescents or young adults, students in higher education institutions, or other specific population studies on cigarette smoking in limited areas, were studied. Moreover, the way the groups were sampled may have led to an overgeneralization of the findings. Equally, the economical, geographical and socio-cultural differences of these groups studied make inferences and generalizations to the entire Nigerian population difficult. Patterns of tobacco use, especially its use in different forms by the same individuals, are not usually considered. However, the Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) is a nationwide survey of Nigerians aged 15-59 years, and thus provides truly reliable and nationally representative data. Its analysis is expected to provide a comparable and reliable prevalence estimate for tobacco use in Nigeria. This study aimed to analyse tobacco-use data from the 2013 Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey, quantify prevalence, and describe the socio-demographic correlates of tobacco use among Nigerians aged 15-49 years.

METHODS

Study area

Nigeria is in sub-Saharan Africa. It is grouped into six geo-political zones including North-West, North-East, North-Central, South-West, South-East and South-Central zones. Administratively, Nigeria is divided into 36 States and the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja. Each State is made up of a number of Local Government Areas (LGAs). There are 774 LGAs in Nigeria, each is subdivided into Localities. There are widely varied regional health indices with the southern region being better than the northern region. Nigeria’s urbanization growth rate is estimated at 5.3% per year14. Nigeria comprises many tribes and languages.

Study design

This is a secondary-data analysis involving the 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. The NDHS is a cross sectional survey executed by the National Population Commission (NPC) with the main objective to provide updated estimates of basic social, demographic, economic and health indicators covering: human reproductive health, maternal and child health, awareness and behaviour regarding HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections, violence against women, and information on Tobacco use14.

Sampling technique and sample size

The Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) used in the survey was defined on the basis of Enumeration Areas (EAs) from the 2006 census. During the 2006 national population census, Local Government Areas were divided into Localities, and each Locality was further subdivided into census EAs, and then clusters for convenience. Household enumeration and mapping in the selected clusters were done to produce a list of households that made up the sampling frame. The final sample size was 36 800 households selected with a minimum target of 950 completed interviews per State. A stratified, two-stage cluster design that uses Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) technique was used to identify clusters within the EAs and to choose households randomly within the clusters, achieving a nationally representative sample that appropriately includes both rural and urban residents, as well as both upper, middle and high Socio-Economic Status (SES) groups14. In the first stage, a total of 888 clusters (PSU), 286 in urban and 602 in rural areas, were selected by systematic sampling using the PPS technique. In the second stage, an average of 41 households were selected by equal probability systematic sampling in each cluster from a list of all private households.

Study population/participants

The study population/participants include: head of selected household who answers questions on the household and provides a listing of household residents, as well as visitors who slept over the night before the survey; all women aged 15-49 years and men 15-59 years, who were either permanent residents of the households or visitors who stayed overnight on the night before the survey.

Study instruments

Data collected for the 2013 NDHS involving use of questionnaires (household, women’s, and men’s questionnaires) were used. It was pretested and a standard protocol observed in administering them. These questionnaires were adapted to collect information on relevant demographic, social, economic factors and health status/indicators, as well as information about tobacco use from eligible members of the selected households. It was translated from English into three major Nigerian languages; Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba. The questionnaires were interviewer administered face-to-face with all eligible participants.

Data analysis

Data on 17 322 respondents were extracted from 36 800 participants in the 2013 NDHS data. This number represents respondents with complete data on outcome variables of interest. Data were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Chi-squared test of statistical significance was used to verify associations of socio-demographic factors with tobacco use, while binary logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of tobacco use. The variables for regression were adjusted for one another. The level of statistical significance was determined by p<0.05.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 31.7±11.7 years. The majority of the household heads were males (90.4%). The highest proportion of respondents (48.3%) had attained secondary education. Also, the highest proportion of respondents studied were from the North-West geo-political zone (23.8%) and the least from the South-East (9.7%). There was approximately an equal distribution of religion; Christianity 51.7% and Islam 46.9%. About 50% were never in union. A higher proportion of respondents (58.8%) lived in the rural area, and approximately one-fifth of the respondents (20.4%) belonged to the middle-wealth index.

Table 1.

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents using 2013 NDHS

Socio-demographic characteristics Total (N=17 322) Frequency (n) Per cent (%)
Age in categories (years)
 15-24 6532 37.7
 25-34 5119 29.6
 ≥35 5671 32.7
 Mean ± SD 31.69 ± 11.69
Gender of head of household
 Male 15662 90.4
 Female 1660 9.6
Educational level
 No formal education 3347 19.3
 Primary 2972 17.2
 Secondary 8372 48.3
 Higher 2631 15.2
Region
 North-Central 3017 17.4
 North-East 2835 16.4
 North-West 4121 23.8
 South-East 1674 9.7
 South-Central 3029 17.5
 South-West 2646 15.3
Religion
 Christianity 8954 51.7
 Islam 8120 46.9
 Others (Traditionalist, Atheist) 248 1.4
Marital status
  Never in union 8510 49.1
  Married with spouse 318 1.8
  Others 8494 49.0
Residence
 Urban 7129 41.2
 Rural 10193 58.8
Wealth index
 Poorer/Poorest 5663 32.7
 Middle 3534 20.4
 Richer/Richest 8125 46.9

Table 2 shows the prevalence and pattern of use of tobacco in different forms. About 6.6% smoked cigarettes, 1.7% used snuff, 0.4% smoked pipe, and 0.2% chewed tobacco. Of those that smoked cigarettes, 3.1% smoked pipe, 2.4% chewed tobacco, and 4.6% used snuff, in addition. The range of sticks of cigarettes they smoked was 3-10 sticks, with an average of 5.

Table 2.

Prevalence and pattern of use of tobacco in different forms using 2013 NDHS

Tobacco use (form) Total (N=17 322) Yes Freq (%) No Freq (%)
Smoke cigarettes 1140(6.6) 16182(93.4)
Smoke pipe 61(0.4) 17261(99.6)
Chew tobacco 33(0.2) 17289(99.8)
Uses snuff 292(1.7) 17030(98.3)
Smoke cigarettes and pipe 35(0.2) 17287(99.8)
Smoke cigarettes and chew tobacco 27(0.2) 17295(99.8)
Smoke cigarettes and use snuff 53(0.3) 17269(99.7)
Smoke pipe and chew tobacco 0(0.0) 17322(100.0)
Smoke pipe and use snuff 0(0.0) 17322(100.0)
Chew tobacco and use snuff 1(0.0) 17321(100.0)
n = 1140*
Smoke cigarettes and pipe 35(3.1) 1105(96.9)
Smoke cigarettes and chew tobacco 27(2.4) 1113(97.6)
Smoke cigarettes and use snuff 53(4.6) 1087(95.4)
Average number of cigarette sticks in 24 hours
Median (IR)# 5(3-10)
*

number that smokes cigarettes

#

Interquartile range

Table 3 shows the prevalence and pattern of use of tobacco in different forms stratified by gender. About 6.6% males and 6.3% females smoked cigarettes, 1.8% males and 0.7% females used snuff, 0.4% males and 0.2% females smoked pipe, and 0.2% males and 0.4% females chewed tobacco. Of those studied, 0.2% of males and of females, smoked cigarettes and pipe, 0.1% males and 0.3% females smoked cigarettes and chewed tobacco, 0.3% males and 0.4% females smoked cigarettes and used snuff, only one male respondent chewed tobacco and used snuff, and none of the respondents smoked pipe and chewed tobacco, or smoked pipe and used snuff.

Table 3.

Prevalence and pattern of use of tobacco in different forms stratified by gender.

Male Female
Tobacco use (form) stratified by gender Yes Freq (%) Yes Freq (%) p value
Smoke cigarettes 1036(6.6) 104(6.3) 0.585
Smoke pipe 58(0.4) 3(0.2) 0.215
Chew tobacco 27(0.2) 6(0.4) 0.093
Uses snuff 281(1.8) 11(0.7) 0.001
Smoke cigarettes and pipe 32(0.2) 3(0.2) 0.839
Smoke cigarettes and chew tobacco 22(0.1) 5(0.3) 0.114
Smoke cigarettes and use snuff 47(0.3) 6(0.4) 0.667
Smoke pipe and chew tobacco NA NA
Smoke pipe and use snuff NA NA
Chew tobacco and use snuff 1(0.0) 0(0.0) 0.745

Table 4 shows the relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and smoking of cigarettes. The respondents who were aged 25-34 years and ≥35 years were about six times (AOR 5.8; 95% CI 4.6-7.2) and five times (AOR 4.1; 95% CI 4.1-6.8), respectively, more likely to smoke cigarettes than those aged 15-24 years. Those that had primary education were about 1.4 times (AOR 1.4; 95% CI 1.2-1.8) more likely, while those that had secondary education were 1.1 times (AOR 0.9; 95% CI 0.7-1.1) less likely, to smoke cigarettes than those with no formal education. Those in the south were about 1.3 times (AOR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1-1.5) more likely to smoke cigarettes than those in the north. Moslems were about 1.7 times (AOR 0.6; 95% CI 0.5-0.7) less likely to smoke cigarettes than Christians. Middle-class were about 1.1 times (AOR 1.1; 95% CI 0.9-1.3) more likely, while the wealthier were 1.1 times (AOR 0.9; 95% CI 0.7-1.1) less likely to smoke cigarettes than the poorer class.

Table 4.

Relationship between socio-demographic characteristics and smoke cigarettes using 2013 NDHS

Total (N=17 322)
Socio-demographic Yes Freq (%) No Freq (%) Bivariate analysis x2 (p value) Multivariate analysis AOR ( 95%CI)
Age categories (years)
15-24 133(2.0) 6399(98.0) 1
25-34 488(9.5) 4631(90.5) 352.981 5.8(4.6-7.2)
≥35 519(9.2) 5152(90.8) (<0.001) 5.3(4.1-6.8)
Gender 1
Male 1036(6.6) 14626(93.4) 0.299
Female 104(6.3) 1556(93.7) (0.585) NA
Educational level
No formal education 161(4.8) 3186(95.2) 1
Primary 341(11.5) 2631(88.5) 147.885 1.4(1.2-1.8)
Secondary 508(6.1) 7864(93.9) (<0.001) 0.9(0.7-1.1)
Higher 130(6.6) 2501(95.1) 0.5(0.4-0.7)
Region
North 504(5.0) 9471(95.0) 91.578 1
South 638(8.7) 6711(91.3) (<0.001) 1.3(1.1-1.5)
Religion
Christianity 767(8.6) 8187(91.4) 1
Islam 327(4.0) 7793(96.0) 201.300 0.6(0.5-0.7)
Others 46(18.5) 202(81.5) (<0.001) 1.9(1.3-2.7)
Marital status
Never in union 378(4.4) 8132(95.6) 1
Married with spouse 50(15.7) 268(84.3) 151.403 1.3(0.9-1.9)
Others 712(8.4) 7782(91.6) (<0.001) 0.9(0.8-1.1)
Residence
Urban 479(6.7) 6650(93.3) 0.374 1
Rural 661(6.5) 9532(93.5) (0.541) NA
Wealth index
Poorer/Poorest 320(5.7) 5343(94.3) 13.636 1
Middle 265(7.5) 3269(92.5) (0.001) 1.1(0.9-1.3)
Richer/Richest 555(6.8) 7570(93.2) 0.9(0.7-1.1)

NA: Not Applicable

Bivariate analysis using Chi-squared test

Multivariate analysis using Binary Logistic Regression

AOR: Adjusted Odds Ratio

DISCUSSION

The main findings from this study include: tobacco use was low, males and females use tobacco similarly, tobacco is used in both smoked and smokeless form, socio-economic and demographic factors influence tobacco use. The proportion of respondents that smoked cigarettes in this survey was low compared to other countries, especially developed and some developing countries. The finding is similar to that from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey that reported 5.6% among adults aged 15 years and above. However, other studies have documented that prevalence of tobacco use is widely varied15. World Health Organisation reported that the prevalence of overall current tobacco use was 15.4% (males 19.2% and females 11.1% )20, which is in contrast to our findings on tobacco use. The disparity may be as a result of the differences in the population studied in terms of race, economic status, and life style, as well as legislation on tobacco use. This finding, though low, should be made even lower, especially when the negative health effects of tobacco use are considered. The implication is that even though tobacco-control programs are being propagated, more effort is required in monitoring of tobacco use so as to improve the implementation of tobacco-control measures. The approach should be multi-sectoral, including the health sector, social media, and others. This has been suggested by GATS in their assertion that Services for cessation of tobacco use could be integrated into the health system, given that a large portion of smokers are ready to quit smoking11.

Those aged 25-34 years and ≥35 years were more likely to smoke cigarettes than those aged 15-24 years from this study. This finding of association between age and cigarette smoking is in line with many studies. A study in Zaria, Nigeria, documented age to be associated with tobacco use16. The finding was also supported by a study in Nepal that showed that those in age group 36-49 years were 2.4 times more likely to use any form of tobacco than the younger age group 15-24 years17. Similar findings have been reported in other studies18. However, the finding of low prevalence of smoking among those aged 15-24 years is valid, as it has been documented that the age of initiation of smoking is a key factor in cessation of smoking and in relation to the health implications of tobacco use19.

This study reported that those that had secondary education and above were less likely to smoke cigarettes than those with primary education and below. This is expected as education comes with enlightenment that allows the better educated to appreciate more the implications of tobacco use. Similar studies support the finding that men with no education were 3.5 more likely to smoke tobacco20. Similarly, while, in Ibadan, Nigeria, prevalence of smoking was higher for the higher classes15, in Zaria, Nigeria, the student’s social class was not associated with adolescent tobacco use16. A study in Brazil equally showed that the number of tobacco users with no education or less than a year schooling were twice those with 2 or more years of education21.

This study showed an association between socio-economic status and tobacco use but could not identify it as a predictor of tobacco use. Some studies have also found an association between socio-economic status and adolescent tobacco use, with mixed results. A survey in Brazil showed that prevalence of smoking was higher among the poor even after controlling for age, marital status, education, employment and residence21. While a study reported higher use among low socio-economic status22, another reported higher use among high socio-economic status23. Smoking among youth was found more in socially disadvantaged groups24,25. Poor people are more likely to start smoking at a younger age, smoke more, have a lower quit rate and more likely to die from smoking26,27. Social determinants of smoking vary between and within countries, hence addressing this equity aspect of tobacco is an important political and public health concern20.

Those in the southern geo-political region were more likely to smoke cigarettes than those from the north. Moreover, Moslems were less likely to smoke than Christians. This may be due to differences in religious freedom. While the northern part is predominantly Moslem, the southern part is mainly Christian. Equally, the socio-cultural differences of these population groups studied can partly be explained by the fact that in the southern part people are more educated, with women having a more liberal social life.

Marital status showed no association with tobacco use in this study. However, other studies showed significant associations between marital status and tobacco use17,20. In this study, smoking was slightly higher among men than in women, though not significant. This finding is in line with many other studies that reported that tobacco use was higher among males than females in both young and old15,17,28. Smoking prevalence among female students at the University of Lagos was zero29. This may be explained partly by differences in lifestyle and the occupation of men and women. The design and method used in these studies may be responsible for the differences observed, unlike other studies where a region of the country is studied. This is supported by a study in Nepal that documented association with manual work, which males are more likely to be involved in than females13. However, a study documented a higher prevalence of tobacco use among females30,31. Moreover, other studies found no significant differences between male and female tobacco use32,33.

Place of residence, classified as either urban or rural in this study, had no relationship with tobacco use. In contrast, several studies documented that tobacco use and cigarette smoking is associated with place of residence17,20. While a study reported higher use among rural residents34, others have reported higher use among urban residents35. The findings may have been different from this current study owing to differences in the economical, geographical, and socio-cultural practices of these groups.

Limitations

It would have been better to use primary data collected by researchers, as it would have been more appropriate and representative. Equally, there could have been changes in data or findings due to the difference in time when the data were collected and the present analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of tobacco by both males and females was low. The commonest form of tobacco use was cigarettes and the least used was chewing tobacco. The commonest combination was cigarettes and snuff, even on stratification by gender. None of them smoked pipe and chewed tobacco or smoked pipe and used snuff. The identified predictors were age in categories, educational level, region and religion. These findings show that there is serious and urgent need for improved tobacco prevention and control interventions in Nigeria. Despite the low prevalence, which is good, political will and strong policies need to be put in place to stop people from starting tobacco use while encouraging current users to quit.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We appreciate ORC Macro International for allowing us to access the data.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.

FUNDING

There was no source of funding for this research

PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed

REFERENCES

  • 1.Tobacco Fact sheet. World Health Organization; http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/tobacco_facts/en/. Published, 2014. Accessed February 15, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mortality attributable to tobacco. WHO Global Report 2012. http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/.../rep_mortality_attributable/en. Accessed February 15, 2017.
  • 3.ASF Fact Sheet: What’s In A Cigarette. Action on Smoking and Health. http://ash.org.uk/information-and-resources/fact-sheets/whats-in-a-cigarette. Published, 2009. Accessed February 15, 2017.
  • 4.Tobacco: Fact Sheet. World Health Organization; http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/. Published, 2013. Accessed February 15, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Eriksen M, Mackay J, Ross H. The Tobacco Atlas. 4th ed. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: American Cancer Society; 2012. Accessed February 15, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mathers CD, Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PloS Medicine. 2006;3(11):e442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Petro R, Lopez AD. Future worldwide health effects of current smoking patterns. In: Koop CE, Pearson CE, Schwarz MR, editors. Critical issues in global health. San Francisco, CA, USA: Wiley (Jossey-Bass); 2001. pp. 154–161. https://www.who.int/tobacco/.../mpower_report_concl_refs_acknow_2008.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Discussion Paper: A Comprehensive Global Monitoring Framework Including Indicators and a Set of Voluntary Global Targets for the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases. World Health Organization; https://www.who.int/nmh/events/2011/.../WHO_Discussion_Paper_FINAL.pdf. Published, 2012. Accessed February 15, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Centre for Disease Control and Prevention A Report of the Surgeon General 2012: Preventing Tobacco Use among Youths and Adults. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2012/.../consumer.pdf. Published, 2012. Accessed February 15, 2017. [PubMed]
  • 10.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youths and Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon. https://www.surgeongeneral.gov/.../reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf. Published, 2012. Accessed February 15, 2017.
  • 11.Global Adult Tobacco Survey: Country Report 2012. World Health Organization; https://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/survey/gats/nigeria_country_report.pdf. Accessed February 15, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ekanem IA, Asuzu MC, Anunobi CC, Malami SA, Jibrin PG, Ekanem AD, et al. Prevalence of tobacco use among youths in five centres in Nigeria: A Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) approach. Journal of Community Medicine and Primary Health Care. 2010;22(1/2):62–67. doi: 10.4314/jcmphc.v22i1-2.68336. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Khanal V, Adhikari M, Karki S. Social determinants of tobacco consumption among Nepalese men: findings from Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Harm Reduction Journal. 2013;10(40) doi: 10.1186/1477-7517-10-40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.National Population Commission (NPC) [Nigeria], ICF International Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2013. https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR293/FR293.pdf. Published, 2014. Accessed February 15, 2017.
  • 15.Omokhodion FO, Faseru BO. Perception of cigarette smoking and advertisement among senior secondary school students in Ibadan, southwestern Nigeria. West Afr J Med. 2007;26(3):206–209. doi: 10.4314/wajm.v26i3.28310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Idris SH, Sambo MN. Psycho-active substance use among in-school adolescents in Zaria, North Western Nigeria: what are the triggers? Niger J Med. 2009;18(3):291–4. doi: 10.4314/njm.v18i3.51191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sreeramareddy CT, Ramakrishnareddy N, Harsha Kumar H, Sathian B, Arokiasamy JT. Prevalence, distribution and correlates of tobacco smoking and chewing in Nepal: a secondary data analysis of Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2006. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. 2011;6(33) doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-6-33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nwafor CC, Ibeh CC, Aguwa EN, Chukwu JN. Assessment of pattern of cigarette smoking and associated factors among male students in public secondary schools in Anambra State, Nigeria. Niger J Med. 2012;21(1):41–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Federico B, Costa G, Kunst AE. Educational inequalities in initiation, cessation, and prevalence of smoking among 3 Italian birth cohorts. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97(5):838–845. doi: 10.2105/ajph.2005.067082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hosseinpoor AR, Parker LA, Tursan d’Espaignet E, Chatterji S. Social Determinants of Smoking in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Results from the World Health Survey. PLoS One. 2013;6:e20331. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brazil National Cancer Institute Global Adult Tobacco Survey Brazil 2008. http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/en_tfi_gats_2010_brazil.pdf. Published, 2010. Accessed February 15, 2017.
  • 22.Doku D, Koivusilta L, Raisamo S, Rimpela A. Do socioeconomic differences in tobacco use exist also in developing countries? A study of Ghanaian adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2010;8(10):758. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Simetin P, Kern J, Kuzman M, Pfortner TK. Inequalities in Croatian pupils’ risk behaviours associated to socioeconomic environment at school and area level: a multilevel approach. Soc Sci Med. 2013;98:154–61. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Goldade K, Choi K, Bernat DH, Klein EG, Okuyemi KS, Forster J. Multilevel predictors of smoking initiation among adolescents: findings from the Minnesota Adolescent Community Cohort (MACC) study. Preventive Medicine. 2012;54(3-4):242–246. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.12.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tjora T, Hetland J, Aarø LE, Øverland S. Distal and proximal family predictors of adolescents’ smoking initiation and development: a longitudinal latent curve model analysis. BMJ Public Health. 2011;11(911) doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-911. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bauld L, Judge K, Platt S. Assessing the impact of smoking cessation services on reducing health inequalities in England: observational study. Tob Control. 2007;16(6):400–4. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.021626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mathur C, Stigler MH, Perry CL, Arora M, Reddy KS. Differences in prevalence of tobacco use among Indian urban youth: the role of socioeconomic status. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(1):109–16. doi: 10.1080/14622200701767779. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Odukoya OO, Odeyemi KA, Oyeyemi AS, Upadhyay RP. Determinants of smoking initiation and susceptibility to future smoking among school-going adolescents in Lagos State, Nigeria. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(3):1747–1753. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.3.1747. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Aina B, Onajole A, Lawal B, Oyerinde O. Promoting cessation and a tobacco free future: willingness of pharmacy students at the University of Lagos, Nigeria. Tob Induc Dis. 2009;5(1):13. doi: 10.1186/1617-9625-5-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Baheiraei A, Soltani F, Ebadi A, Cheraghi MA, Rahimi FA. Family and peer risk factors as predictors of lifetime tobacco use among Iranian adolescents: gender similarities and differences. Glob J Health Sci. 2014;6(4):336–54. doi: 10.5539/gjhs.v6n4p63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Peltzer K. Smokeless tobacco and cigarette use among black secondary school students in South Africa. Substance Use and Misuse. 2003;38:1003–16. doi: 10.1081/ja-120017621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Thomas JL, Renner CC, Patten CA, Decker PA, Utermohle CJ, Ebbert JO. Prevalence and correlates of tobacco use among middle and high school students in western Alaska. Int J Circumpolar Health. 2010;69(2):168–80. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v69i2.17602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zaborskis A, Sumskas L, Zemaitiene N, Grabauskas V, Veryga A, Petkevicius R. Trends of smoking prevalence among Lithuanian school-aged children in 1994-2006. Medicina (Kaunas) 2009;45(10):798–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhen-Duan J, Taylor MJ. The use of an eco-developmental approach to examining substance use among rural and urban Latino/a youth: peer, parental and school influences. J Ethn Subst Abuse. 2014;13(2):104–125. doi: 10.1080/15332640.2013.873006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fougler L, Page RM, Hall PC, Crookston BT, West JH. Health risk behaviours in urban and rural Guatemalan adolescents. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2013;25(1):97–105. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2013-0014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tobacco Induced Diseases are provided here courtesy of The International Society for the Prevention of Tobacco Induced Diseases

RESOURCES