Abstract
Background:
One of the mechanisms by which high educational attainment promotes populations’ health is through reducing exposure to environmental risk factors such as second-hand smoke. Minorities’ Diminished Returns theory, however, posits that the protective effect of educational attainment may be smaller for racial and ethnic minority individuals particularly Blacks and Hispanics compared to Whites.
Aims:
To explore racial and ethnic differences in the association between educational attainment and second-hand smoke exposure at work in a national sample of American adults.
Methods:
Data came from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS 2015), a cross-sectional study that included 15,726 employed adults. The independent variable was educational attainment, the dependent variables were any and daily second-hand smoke exposure at workplace, age and gender were covariates, and race and ethnicity were the moderators.
Results:
Overall, higher educational attainment was associated with lower odds of any and daily second-hand smoke exposure at work. Race and ethnicity both interacted with educational attainment suggesting that the protective effects of educational attainment on reducing the odds of any and daily second-hand smoke exposure at work are systemically smaller for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites.
Conclusions:
In the United States, race and ethnicity bound the health gains that follow educational attainment. While educational attainment helps individuals avoid environmental risk factors such as second-hand smoke, this is more valid for Whites than Blacks and Hispanics. The result is additional risk of cancer and tobacco related disease in highly educated Blacks and Hispanics. The results are important given racial and ethnic minorities are the largest growing section of the US population. We should not assume that educational attainment is similarly protective across all racial and ethnic groups. In this context, educational attainment may increase, rather than reduce, health disparities.
Keywords: population groups, ethnicity, race, Hispanics, Latinos, Whites, Blacks, African Americans, socioeconomic position, socioeconomic status, education, smoking, tobacco use, second-hand smoke, work, employment
Background
Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disease and premature death in the United States1,2. About 480,000 Americans die from tobacco-related illnesses annually. In addition, more than 16 million Americans are impacted by diseases caused by smoking 3–6. These cost US more than $300 billion each year, which is composed of $170 and $156 billion for direct and indirect costs7.
Unfortunately, there is an unequal burden of tobacco use in the US. Despite a lower prevalence of smoking, Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to be impacted by tobacco related conditions and illnesses8. A higher burden of tobacco related illnesses despite lower prevalence is in part due to high levels of second-hand smoke exposure in low socioeconomic status (SES) racial and ethnic minority individuals 9,10,11,12, in addition to a vulnerability13 which is because of low trust and low access to treatment and the health care 14–16. Despite the progress in reducing overall morbidity and mortality attributed to smoking, tobacco use has shifted from a mainstream behavior to a behavior which is mainly is concentrated among marginalized populations defined by SES, race, and ethnicity. The existing economic and racial and ethnic gap in the burden of tobacco related disease is a major threat to the progress that has been made thus far.
According to the Minorities’ Diminished Returns (MDRs)17–19, at least some of the racial/ethnic disparities are due to “less than expected” protective effects of SES indicators such as educational attainment17,20–22. The MDRs theory suggests that : (a) racial/ethnic disparities in tobacco use are not all due to SES gaps but also because of differential health gains that follow high SES for Black and Hispanic populations, (b) the racial and ethnic gap in tobacco use widens at higher SES levels, and (c) there is a need to address racial/ethnic disparities across all SES levels 17–19. Some evidence suggests that MDRs also applies to tobacco use, meaning that high SES Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to use tobacco and alcohol, compared to high SES Whites23–26. We are, however, not aware of any previous studies on MDRs on second-hand smoke exposure.
We conducted this study to test whether race and ethnicity interact with educational attainment on workplace second-hand smoke exposure in American adults who were employed. We hypothesized that the protective effects of educational attainment against second-hand exposure is smaller for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites. MDRs are not because of groups’ or individuals’ characteristics but differential treatment by the society. The US labor market discriminates, and the society marginalizes and stigmatizes Blacks and Hispanics. As a result, highly educated Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to work in low quality occupations, that increase their exposure to a wide range of environmental exposures such as second-hand smoke. In addition, due to residential segregation, highly educated Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to live in unsafe poor areas that have poor job opportunities. Thus, educational attainment does not similarly protect the marginalized groups. This differential treatment becomes MDRs of educational attainment for Blacks and Hispanics.
Methods
Design and settings
This is a secondary analysis of the 2015 NHIS data. Funded by the CDC, NHIS is one of the main national health surveys of Americans. Data were collected in 2015.
Data retrieval
We used publicly available NHIS data sets, downloaded from the NHIS/CDC website. We merged personal, individual, and cancer data sets, using the subject and family IDs. Although the NHIS 2015 includes 33672 adults (from all race and ethnicities and including employed and non-employed), the current analysis only includes 15,726 employed adults who were either White or Black.
Sample and sampling
The NHIS population was the civilian, non-institutionalized US population, 18 years of age and older individuals in the US. The NHIS uses a multistage, clustered, stratified area probability sample design.
Analytical Sample
The current analysis is limited to adults who were either White or Black and had valid data on tobacco use. Our final analytical sample was 15,726 employed White or Black adults.
Study variables
The study variables include demographic factors (age and gender), race, ethnicity, educational attainment (SES), and tobacco use, all measured at the individual level. Demographic Characteristics. Confounders were age and gender. Age was a continuous measure. Gender was a dichotomous variable (male 1 female 0). Race was self-identified as was either Blacks versus Whites. Ethnicity. Ethnicity was self-identified and was Hispanics versus Non-Hispanics. Years at This Job was measured as self-report and treated as a continuous measure, ranging from 0 to 36 years. Having More than One Job was a dichotomous variable. Participants were asked if they were working on more than one job. Educational Attainment was a continuous measure varying from 0 to 24 years. Marital Status was self-reported and included the following categories: 1) Married, 2) Widowed, 3) Divorced, 4) Separated, 5) Never married, and 6) Living with partner. This variable was treated as a categorical (nominal) variable and married was regarded as the reference group. Region was a four-level categorical variable coded as below: 1) Northeast, 2) Midwest, 3) South, and 4) West. This variable was treated as a categorical (nominal) variable and Northeast was regarded as the reference group. Current smoking was measured using self-reported items that measured if the individual has smoked 100 cigarettes, smokes currently, and smokes daily. Affirmatory answer to all above items were required for definition of current smokers.
Two outcomes in this study were Any and Daily Workplace Second-Hand Smoke Exposures. The participants were asked “How often were your exposed to second-hand smoke at work, during the past 12 months?” Responses were (a) never, (b) Less than twice a week, (c) Twice a week or more, but not every day, and (d) Every day. We recoded these categories to generate two separate outcomes: (1) daily workplace second-hand smoke exposure and (2) any workplace second-hand smoke exposure.
Conceptual model
Built on the MDRs theory, we were mainly interested in the diminished returns of educational attainment on second-hand smoke exposure for non-Whites relative to Whites. We conceptualized the MDRS as interaction terms between race and ethnicity with educational attainment (SES).
Data analytical plan
We analyzed the data using SPSS 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Using SPSS 23.0, we were able to accommodate survey weights due to the design (e.g. stratification, clustering, and non-response). First, we examined the distribution of our categorical and continuous variables. Then we used Spearman correlation tests to explore unadjusted correlations between the study variables. For multivariable analysis, we applied binary logistic regression. However, we first ruled out collinearity between independent variables. We ran models in the pooled sample.
Ethics
All adult participants in the NHIS provided written informed consent. NHIS is approved by the Research Ethics Review Board of the National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
This study included 15,726 American adults who were either White (13,327, %84.7) or Black (2,399, %15.3). Mean age of the participants was 43.4 (SD = 14.2) years. On average, participants had 15.8 years (SD = 2.8 years) as their educational attainment. Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of the overall sample (Table 1).
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics in the overall sample.
| Mean | SD | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 43.4 | 14.2 |
| Educational Attainment | 15.8 | 2.8 |
| Work at the Same Job | 8.4 | 9.1 |
| n | % | |
| Race | ||
| White | 13,327 | 84.7 |
| Black | 2,399 | 15.3 |
| Ethnicity | ||
| Non-Hispanic | 13,743 | 87.5 |
| Hispanic | 1,955 | 12.5 |
| Gender | ||
| Women | 7,957 | 50.6 |
| Men | 7,769 | 49.4 |
| Marital Status | ||
| Married | 7,296 | 46.4 |
| Widowed | 430 | 2.7 |
| Divorced | 2,279 | 14.5 |
| Separated | 449 | 2.9 |
| Never married | 4,070 | 25.9 |
| Living with partner | 1,173 | 7.5 |
| Region | ||
| Northeast | 2,584 | 16.4 |
| Midwest | 3,762 | 23.9 |
| South | 5,604 | 35.6 |
| West | 3,776 | 24.0 |
| Work in More than One Job | ||
| No | 14,275 | 90.8 |
| Yes | 1,431 | 9.1 |
| Current Smoker | ||
| Non-Smoker | 13,103 | 83.3 |
| Smoker | 2,571 | 16.3 |
| Second-Hand Smoke Exposure (Any) | ||
| No | 11,889 | 75.7 |
| Yes | 3,820 | 24.3 |
| Second-Hand Smoke Exposure (Daily) | ||
| No | 14,187 | 90.4 |
| Yes | 1,509 | 9.6 |
Notes: Source the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS 2015)
Bivariate Analysis
Table 2 shows bivariate correlations between the study variables. Educational attainment was inversely correlated with any and daily second-hand smoke exposure. Ethnicity was not correlated with any and daily second-hand smoke exposure. Being Black was, however, positively correlated with any and daily second-hand smoke exposure (Table 2).
Table 2.
Bivariate correlations in the overall sample.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Race (Black) | 1.000 | −.126** | −.074** | −.030** | −.071** | −.040** | .009 | −.023** | .023** | .022** |
| 2 Ethnicity (Hispanic) | 1.000 | .027** | −.098** | −.207** | −.078** | −.043** | −.033** | −.010 | −.018* | |
| 3 Gender (Male) | 1.000 | −.003 | −.071** | .033** | −.017* | .029** | .153** | .096** | ||
| 4 Age (Years) | 1.000 | .046** | .521** | −.022** | −.044** | −.099** | −.070** | |||
| 5 Educational Attainment | 1.000 | .054** | .069** | −.208** | −.157** | −.176** | ||||
| 6 Number of years on the job | 1.000 | −.026** | −.097** | −.055** | −.059** | |||||
| 7 More than a Job | 1.000 | −.022** | .017* | −.009 | ||||||
| 8 Current Smoking | 1.000 | .209** | .319** | |||||||
| 9 Second-Hand Smoke Exposure (Any) | 1.000 | .576** | ||||||||
| 10 Second-Hand Smoke Exposure (Daily) | 1.000 |
p<0.05
p<0.01
Spearman Correlation Test
Notes: Source the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS 2015)
Multivariable models (Outcome: any second-hand smoking exposure)
Table 3 presents the summary of the results of two logistic regression models with educational attainment as the independent variable and any second-hand smoking exposure as the dependent variable. Both models were estimated in the overall sample. Model 1 only entered the main effects of educational attainment, race, ethnicity, and covariates. Model 2 also added two interaction terms between race and ethnicity with educational attainment. Based on Model 1, high educational attainment was associated with lower odds of any workplace second-hand smoking exposure. Model 2 showed significant interactions between race and ethnicity with educational attainment on any second-hand smoking exposure, suggesting that high educational attainment has smaller protective effect against any workplace second-hand smoking exposure for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites. This was evident by the ORs larger than 1 for the interaction terms (Table 3).
Table 3.
Summary of logistic regression models on any workplace second-hand smoke exposure in the pooled sample.
| OR | 95% CI | p | OR | 95% CI | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 (Main Effects) | Model 2 (Model 1 + Interactions) | |||||||
| Race (Blacks) | 1.19 | 1.07 | 1.33 | .002 | 0.44 | 0.24 | 0.83 | .011 |
| Ethnicity (Hispanics) | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.82 | .000 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.25 | .000 |
| Gender (male) | 2.08 | 1.92 | 2.25 | .000 | 2.08 | 1.92 | 2.26 | .000 |
| Age (Years) | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 | .000 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 | .000 |
| Educational Attainment (Years) | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.93 | .000 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.90 | .000 |
| Marital Status | .073 | .143 | ||||||
| Married | ||||||||
| Widowed | 1.10 | 0.84 | 1.44 | .483 | 1.08 | 0.82 | 1.41 | .586 |
| Divorced | 1.15 | 1.02 | 1.30 | .022 | 1.13 | 1.01 | 1.28 | .040 |
| Separated | 1.02 | 0.81 | 1.30 | .854 | 1.02 | 0.80 | 1.29 | .875 |
| Never married | 1.11 | 1.01 | 1.23 | .038 | 1.11 | 1.00 | 1.22 | .054 |
| Living with partner | 1.22 | 1.05 | 1.41 | .009 | 1.20 | 1.03 | 1.39 | .016 |
| Unknown | 1.10 | 0.38 | 3.14 | .861 | 1.08 | 0.38 | 3.07 | .890 |
| Region | .005 | .003 | ||||||
| Northeast | 1.00 | |||||||
| Midwest | 1.03 | 0.91 | 1.17 | .593 | 1.02 | 0.90 | 1.16 | .722 |
| South | 1.03 | 0.91 | 1.15 | .681 | 1.02 | 0.91 | 1.15 | .697 |
| West | 1.20 | 1.06 | 1.36 | .004 | 1.21 | 1.07 | 1.37 | .003 |
| Years in the Same job | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.01 | .121 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.01 | .149 |
| Working in more than a job | 1.24 | 1.09 | 1.42 | .001 | 1.25 | 1.10 | 1.43 | .001 |
| Smoker Current | 2.78 | 2.53 | 3.05 | .000 | 2.68 | 2.43 | 2.94 | .000 |
| 1.07 | 1.02 | 1.11 | .002 | |||||
| 1.12 | 1.08 | 1.15 | .000 | |||||
| Constant | 1.15 | .376 | 2.30 | .000 | ||||
Notes: Source the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS 2015)
CI: Confidence Interval; SE: Standard Error; OR: Odds Ratio
Multivariable models (Outcome: daily second-hand smoking exposure)
Table 4 presents the summary of the results of two logistic regression models with educational attainment as the independent variable and daily workplace second-hand smoking exposure as the dependent variable. Both models were estimated in the overall sample. Model 3 only entered the main effects of educational attainment, race, ethnicity, and covariates. Model 4 also added two interaction terms between race and ethnicity with educational attainment. Based on Model 3, high educational attainment was associated with lower odds of daily second-hand smoking exposure. Model 4 showed significant interactions between race and ethnicity with educational attainment on daily second-hand smoking exposure, suggesting that high educational attainment has smaller protective effect against daily workplace second-hand smoking exposure for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites. This was evident by the ORs larger than 1 for the interaction terms (Table 4).
Table 4.
Summary of logistic regression models on daily workplace second-hand smoke exposure in the pooled sample.
| OR | 95% CI | p | OR | 95% CI | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 3 (Main Effects) | Model 4 (Model 3 + Interactions) | |||||||
| Race (Blacks) | 1.22 | 1.04 | 1.43 | 0.017 | 0.39 | 0.16 | 0.91 | .029 |
| Ethnicity (Hispanics) | 0.60 | 0.49 | 0.74 | 0.000 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.27 | .000 |
| Gender (male) | 1.97 | 1.75 | 2.23 | 0.000 | 1.98 | 1.75 | 2.23 | .000 |
| Age (Years) | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 | 0.000 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.99 | .000 |
| Educational Attainment (Years) | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.90 | 0.000 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.86 | .000 |
| Marital Status | 0.038 | .058 | ||||||
| Married | ||||||||
| Widowed | 1.19 | 0.79 | 1.80 | 0.396 | 1.17 | 0.77 | 1.76 | .458 |
| Divorced | 1.22 | 1.02 | 1.45 | 0.031 | 1.20 | 1.01 | 1.44 | .043 |
| Separated | 1.21 | 0.87 | 1.67 | 0.258 | 1.20 | 0.87 | 1.66 | .272 |
| Never married | 1.08 | 0.92 | 1.26 | 0.354 | 1.08 | 0.92 | 1.26 | .354 |
| Living with partner | 1.34 | 1.09 | 1.64 | 0.005 | 1.32 | 1.08 | 1.62 | .007 |
| Unknown | 2.74 | 0.82 | 9.12 | 0.101 | 2.71 | 0.82 | 8.98 | .103 |
| Region | 0.373 | .378 | ||||||
| Northeast | ||||||||
| Midwest | 1.08 | 0.90 | 1.31 | 0.41 | 1.07 | 0.89 | 1.30 | .476 |
| South | 1.17 | 0.98 | 1.40 | 0.091 | 1.17 | 0.97 | 1.40 | .096 |
| West | 1.08 | 0.89 | 1.32 | 0.426 | 1.09 | 0.89 | 1.32 | .400 |
| Years in the Same job | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.01 | 0.989 | 1.00 | 0.99 | 1.01 | .987 |
| Working in more than a job | 1.04 | 0.85 | 1.28 | 0.688 | 1.05 | 0.86 | 1.29 | .623 |
| Smoker Current | 6.43 | 5.71 | 7.25 | 0.000 | 6.22 | 5.51 | 7.01 | .000 |
| Race * Educational Attainment | - | - | - | - | 1.08 | 1.02 | 1.14 | .008 |
| Ethnicity * Educational Attainment | - | - | - | - | 1.12 | 1.06 | 1.17 | .000 |
| Constant | 0.52 | 0.004 | 1.04 | .897 | ||||
Notes: Source the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS 2015)
CI: Confidence Interval; SE: Standard Error; OR: Odds Ratio
Discussion
The current study showed two main findings. First, overall, higher educational attainment was associated with lower odds of any and daily second-hand smoking exposure at work. Second, race and ethnicity interacted with educational attainment suggesting that educational attainment has smaller protective effects against any and daily second-hand smoke exposure at workplace for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites.
Built on the MDRs, educational attainment better reduces risk of substance use for Blacks and Hispanics compared to Whites23,24,27,28. That is, highly educated Blacks and Hispanics remain at high level of tobacco and alcohol use compared to highly educated Whites. The current results suggest that in a similar pattern, highly educated Blacks and Hispanics also remain at high risk of exposure to second-hand smoke. That is, highly educated Blacks and Hispanics stay at risk of tobacco related disease, directly, and indirectly, through multiple mechanisms.
The additional health risk of high SES Blacks and Hispanics is previously described by the MDRs theory17–19. Similar patterns are shown for the associations between a wide range of SES indicators and health outcomes. The effects of education and other SES indicators on obesity29, depression30, anxiety31, self-rated health32, and chronic disease 33 are all smaller for Blacks and Hispanics than Whites .
Smaller effects of educational attainment on any and daily second-hand smoking exposure at work may be due to multiple factors. Due to residential segregation, highly educated Blacks and Hispanics still are more likely to live in predominantly Black and Hispanic areas, which have scarce employment opportunities. Due to labor market discrimination as well as job segregation, highly educated Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to get high paying jobs. Segregation also reduces quality of education in Black and Hispanic areas, and quality of education is one of the many determinates of type and quality of occupation. As a result, the solution is not limited to the individual but should address structural and institutional factors that shape MDRs as a mechanism behind health disparities.
Pervasive disparities in the burden of tobacco use by race/ethnicity16,34–37 and SES38–40 exist in the US. Despite the overall decline in tobacco use, disparities by SES have increased 40–42 Between 1966 and 2015, smoking declined by 83% in individuals with college degree, while the decline for individuals without high school diploma was almost half (40%)4. A large proportion of such disparities may not be due to individuals making poor choices but higher exposure due to predatory marketing43–45. In addition to the predatory marketing, flavoring, point-of-sale advertising, retail display, coupons, and discounts46, racial and ethnic minorities and low SES individuals are also at an increased risk of second hand exposure 10.
There is a need for policies at both national and local levels that can reduce the racial/ethnic and SES tobacco disparities, particularly those that are caused by MDRs19,23,24,28,29,31,47–50. There is need to study how point of sale advertisement, discounts, coupons, and flavoring result in MDRs for tobacco use 23,24 and how some of these marketing strategies disproportionately target low SES Black and Hispanic23,24,27,28 communities. To undo racial and ethnic disparities in tobacco use, there may be a need to ban predatory marketing in low income areas.
Implications
The results may have some policy and public health implications. There is a need for conducting “impact analysis” of tobacco control policies, smoke-free laws, and marketing regulatory laws on disparities in exposure to second-hand smoke across social groups based on race, ethnicity, and SES. There is a need to conduct additional studies that can help us understand why race/ethnicity by SES people become susceptible to tobacco related illnesses. The results may help with development of public, economic and tobacco policies that can eliminate tobacco-related disparities, particularly those that are based on race, ethnicity, and SES. These are all strategic priorities for the FDA and NIH. Setting more restrictive national policies that tighten tobacco regulations are shown to be acceptable by the US public51. This is promising and emphasizes such policies will not be found against their autonomy 51. Such large scale policies may be more effective than individual-level interventions that overemphasize individual choices (focus on behavioral change of individuals through motivation51).
Limitations
This study had some methodological limitations. The cross-sectional design of our data does not allow causal inferences. The outcome was measured using single item measure. We only measured workplace second-hand exposure. Sample size was imbalanced across race and ethnic groups. Many SES indicators such as income, employment, and marital status were missing. This study did not measure health and depression. This study was limited to individual level SES and future research could also include area level SES. Despite these limitations, we believe this study still makes a contribution to the literature.
Conclusion
In the United States, educational attainment is expected to reduce environmental exposures such as second-hand smoke at work, however, this gain depends on race and ethnicity. In the US, race/ethnicity bounds the health gains that follow educational attainment. While highly educated Whites are exposed to lowest levels of workplace second-hand smoking exposure, Blacks and Hispanics gain least from their educational attainment. As a result, we should expect additional risk of tobacco related illnesses in highly educated middle-class Blacks and Hispanics. Policy makers should not assume SES similarly protects all social groups against environmental exposures such as any and daily second-hand smoking exposure. Policy makers and researchers should also try to reduce health disparities to low SES but also mechanisms that operate across all SES levels. Health disparities are also a problem with middle class Blacks and Hispanics, which is one of the major growing sections of the US population.
Acknowledgments
Funding:
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) under Award Number U54CA229974. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration. Bazargan is supported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Grant 1H0CMS331621 as well as the NIH Awards 54MD008149”, R25 MD007610, 2U54MD007598, and U54 TR001627. Assari is also supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant CA201415–02 (Co-PI = R. Mistry). Publicly available data set was downloaded from the NHIS website at CDC. The NHIS is funded by the CDC.
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest:
None
REFERENCES
- 1.McCarthy M Smoking remains leading cause of premature death in US. BMJ 2014;348:g396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Novick LF. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disability in the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract 2000;6(3):vi. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.King BA, Dube SR, Tynan MA. Current tobacco use among adults in the United States: findings from the National Adult Tobacco Survey. Am J Public Health 2012;102(11):e93–e100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Drope J, Liber AC, Cahn Z, et al. Who’s still smoking? Disparities in adult cigarette smoking prevalence in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68(2):106–115. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Holford TR, Meza R, Warner KE, et al. Tobacco control and the reduction in smoking-related premature deaths in the United States, 1964–2012. JAMA 2014;311(2):164–171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State-specific prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults and the proportion of adults who work in a smoke-free environment--United States, 1999. JAMA 2000;284(22):2865–2866. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.CDC. Smoking & Tobacco Use. Fast Facts 2019. [Google Scholar]
- 8.(CDC) CfDCaP. African Americans and Tobacco Use 2019; https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/disparities/african-americans/index.htm.
- 9.Kasza KA, McKee SA, Rivard C, Hyland AJ. Smoke-free bar policies and smokers’ alcohol consumption: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 2012;126(1–2):240–245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Akhtar PC, Haw SJ, Levin KA, Currie DB, Zachary R, Currie CE. Socioeconomic differences in second-hand smoke exposure among children in Scotland after introduction of the smoke-free legislation. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010;64(4):341–346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lowrie C, Pearson AL, Thomson G. Inequities in coverage of smokefree outdoor space policies within the United States: school grounds and playgrounds. BMC Public Health 2018;18(1):736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Agaku IT, Odukoya OO, Olufajo O, Filippidis FT, Vardavas CI. Support for smoke-free cars when children are present: a secondary analysis of 164,819 U.S. adults in 2010/2011. Eur J Pediatr 2014;173(11):1459–1466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Greaves L, Hemsing N. Women and tobacco control policies: social-structural and psychosocial contributions to vulnerability to tobacco use and exposure. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009;104 Suppl 1:S121–130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cokkinides VE, Halpern MT, Barbeau EM, Ward E, Thun MJ. Racial and ethnic disparities in smoking-cessation interventions: analysis of the 2005 National Health Interview Survey. Am J Prev Med 2008;34(5):404–412. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Tran ST, Rosenberg KD, Carlson NE. Racial/ethnic disparities in the receipt of smoking cessation interventions during prenatal care. Matern Child Health J 2010;14(6):901–909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Trinidad DR, Perez-Stable EJ, White MM, Emery SL, Messer K. A nationwide analysis of US racial/ethnic disparities in smoking behaviors, smoking cessation, and cessation-related factors. Am J Public Health 2011;101(4):699–706. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Assari S Parental Educational Attainment and Mental Well-Being of College Students; Diminished Returns of Blacks. Brain Sci 2018;8(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Assari S Health Disparities due to Diminished Return among Black Americans: Public Policy Solutions. Social Issues and Policy Review 2018;12(1):112–145. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Assari S Unequal Gain of Equal Resources across Racial Groups. Int J Health Policy Manag 2017;7(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Assari S Education Attainment and ObesityDifferential Returns Based on Sexual Orientation. Behav Sci (Basel) 2019;9(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Assari S Parental Education Attainment and Educational Upward Mobility; Role of Race and Gender. Behav Sci (Basel) 2018;8(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Assari S Educational Attainment Better Protects African American Women than African American Men Against Depressive Symptoms and Psychological Distress. Brain Sci 2018;8(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Assari S, Farokhnia M, Mistry R. Education Attainment and Alcohol Binge Drinking: Diminished Returns of Hispanics in Los Angeles. Behav Sci (Basel) 2019;9(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Assari S, Mistry R. Educational Attainment and Smoking Status in a National Sample of American Adults; Evidence for the Blacks’ Diminished Return. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Assari S, Mistry R, Caldwell CH. Perceived Discrimination and Substance Use among Caribbean Black Youth; Gender Differences. Brain Sci 2018;8(7). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Assari S, Mistry R, Caldwell CH, Zimmerman MA. Marijuana Use and Depressive Symptoms; Gender Differences in African American Adolescents. Front Psychol 2018;9:2135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Assari S, Lankarani MM. Education and Alcohol Consumption among Older Americans; Black-White Differences. Front Public Health 2016;4:67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Assari S, Mistry R. Erratum: Assari, S.; Mistry, R. Educational Attainment and Smoking Status in a National Sample of American Adults; Evidence for the Blacks’ Diminished Return. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 763 Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Assari S, Thomas A, Caldwell CH, Mincy RB. Blacks’ Diminished Health Return of Family Structure and Socioeconomic Status; 15 Years of Follow-up of a National Urban Sample of Youth. J Urban Health 2018;95(1):21–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Assari S High Income Protects Whites but Not African Americans against Risk of Depression. Healthcare (Basel) 2018;6(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Assari S, Caldwell CH, Zimmerman MA. Family Structure and Subsequent Anxiety Symptoms; Minorities’ Diminished Return. Brain Sci 2018;8(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Assari S, Lapeyrouse LM, Neighbors HW. Income and Self-Rated Mental Health: Diminished Returns for High Income Black Americans. Behav Sci (Basel) 2018;8(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Assari S The Benefits of Higher Income in Protecting against Chronic Medical Conditions Are Smaller for African Americans than Whites. Healthcare (Basel) 2018;6(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Ellickson PL, Orlando M, Tucker JS, Klein DJ. From adolescence to young adulthood: racial/ethnic disparities in smoking. Am J Public Health 2004;94(2):293–299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Centers for Disease C, Prevention. Racial disparities in smoking-attributable mortality and years of potential life lost --- Missouri, 2003–2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2010;59(46):1518–1522. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Soulakova JN, Huang H, Crockett LJ. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Consistent Reporting of Smoking-Related Behaviors. J Addict Behav Ther Rehabil 2015;4(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Blumenthal DS. Racial and ethnic disparities in smoking prevalence in Israel and the United States: progress to date and prospects for the future. Isr J Health Policy Res 2017;6(1):51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Laveist TA, Thorpe RJ Jr., Mance GA, Jackson J Overcoming confounding of race with socio-economic status and segregation to explore race disparities in smoking. Addiction 2007;102 Suppl 2:65–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Reid JL, Hammond D, Driezen P. Socio-economic status and smoking in Canada, 1999–2006: has there been any progress on disparities in tobacco use? Can J Public Health 2010;101(1):73–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Zhang X, Martinez-Donate AP, Jones NR. Educational disparities in home smoking bans among households with underage children in the United States: can tobacco control policies help to narrow the gap? Nicotine Tob Res 2013;15(12):1978–1987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Reimer RA, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX. Racial disparities in smoking knowledge among current smokers: data from the health information national trends surveys. Psychol Health 2010;25(8):943–959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Rock VJ, Davis SP, Thorne SL, Asman KJ, Caraballo RS. Menthol cigarette use among racial and ethnic groups in the United States, 2004–2008. Nicotine Tob Res 2010;12 Suppl 2:S117–124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Terry-McElrath YM, Wakefield MA, Emery S, et al. State anti-tobacco advertising and smoking outcomes by gender and race/ethnicity. Ethn Health 2007;12(4):339–362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Keeler C, Max W, Yerger V, Yao T, Ong MK, Sung HY. The Association of Menthol Cigarette Use With Quit Attempts, Successful Cessation, and Intention to Quit Across Racial/Ethnic Groups in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res 2017;19(12):1450–1464. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Giovenco DP, Spillane TE, Merizier JM. Neighborhood differences in alternative tobacco product availability and advertising in New York City: Implications for health disparities. Nicotine Tob Res 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Anderson SJ. Marketing of menthol cigarettes and consumer perceptions: a review of tobacco industry documents. Tob Control 2011;20 Suppl 2:ii20–28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Assari S Blacks’ Diminished Return of Education Attainment on Subjective Health; Mediating Effect of Income. Brain Sci 2018;8(9). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Assari S, Hani N. Household Income and Children’s Unmet Dental Care Need; Blacks’ Diminished Return. Dent J (Basel) 2018;6(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Assari S, Caldwell CH, Mincy R. Family Socioeconomic Status at Birth and Youth Impulsivity at Age 15; Blacks’ Diminished Return. Children (Basel) 2018;5(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Assari S Socioeconomic Status and Self-Rated Oral Health; Diminished Return among Hispanic Whites. Dent J (Basel) 2018;6(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Feliu A, Filippidis FT, Joossens L, et al. Impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and quit ratios in 27 European Union countries from 2006 to 2014. Tob Control 2019;28(1):101–109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]