Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0245114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245114

Prevalence, patterns and correlates of smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults: An analysis of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey

Ikenna Onoh 1,*, Oluwatomi Owopetu 2, Abdulhakeem Abayomi Olorukooba 3, Chukwuma David Umeokonkwo 4, Tukur Dahiru 3, Muhammad Shakir Balogun 5
Editor: Stanton A Glantz6
PMCID: PMC7787524  PMID: 33406117

Abstract

Introduction

The global tobacco epidemic contributes to more than 8 million deaths annually. However, most tobacco control interventions have been driven by an emphasis on smoked tobacco. Globally and more so in Nigeria, less attention has been paid to the similarly harmful smokeless tobacco (SLT) whose use appeals to a different demography. We examined the prevalence, patterns of use and correlates of SLT in Nigerian adults to guide targeted control efforts.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of the 2012 Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) data. We obtained data on 9,765 non-institutionalised adults aged 15 years and older. Variables included current SLT use, sociodemographic characteristics and perceived harm of SLT use. We used Chi-square test to examine associations and binary logistic regression to assess predictors of current SLT use. All analyses were conducted with sample-weighted data.

Results

The prevalence of current SLT use was 1.9% of all adults. About 1.4% were daily users. The main types were snuff by nose (1.6%) and snuff by mouth (0.8%). There were higher odds of current SLT use for those in the South-East region (aOR = 13.99; 95% CI: 4.45–43.95), rural area residents (aOR = 1.56; 95% CI: 1.04–2.35), males (aOR = 4.43; 95% CI: 2.75–7.11), the 45–64 years age-group (aOR = 10.00; 95% CI: 4.12–24.29), those with no formal education (aOR = 2.67; 95% CI: 1.01–7.05), and those with no perception of harm from SLT use (aOR = 3.81, 95% CI: 2.61–5.56).

Conclusion

The prevalence of SLT use among Nigerian adults was low with clearly identified predictors. While a majority were aware of harm from SLT use, an unacceptably high proportion remain unaware. We recommended targeted interventions to increase awareness of the harmful effects of SLT use especially among residents of the South-East, those in rural areas, males, and individuals with no formal education. We also recommended a follow-up survey.

Introduction

The association between tobacco use and the risk of development of several health effects are well documented in literature. These consequences are borne by millions globally, contributing significantly to morbidity and mortality for current and future generations [14], annually accounting for about 8 million deaths worldwide [5]. Every 6 seconds one person dies due to tobacco-related disease. About 75% of this mortality is among residents of low- and middle-income countries [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) responded to this epidemic by developing the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [6], which has undergone varying levels of implementation in different countries. However, most of these efforts aimed at tobacco control interventions have been driven by an emphasis on smoked tobacco particularly manufactured cigarettes [7], as its prevalence of use is about three times that of SLT [8]. Less attention has been paid to the similarly harmful smokeless tobacco (SLT), whose serious health effects have been documented [2, 9, 10].

SLT use adversely impacts health, with outcomes such as periodontal disease, mouth lesions and leukoplakia [9, 10]. Also, a 2012 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) review of multiple studies showed that SLT causes oral cancer, esophageal cancer, and pancreatic cancer in humans [11]. Furthermore, SLT users upon cessation of use may show signs of nicotine addiction, such as tolerance and withdrawal symptoms [12].

Although SLT use causes adverse health outcomes, understanding its use and the impact is made difficult by the wide variation in products and user-specific behaviors. Globally, a wide range of SLT products with varying characteristics are available including snus, snuff, chewing tobacco, gutka, betel quid with tobacco, toombak, iqmik and tobacco lozenges [9]. This diversity makes generalizing about these products across regions and countries as one entity inaccurate [9]. Furthermore, SLT product regulation (e.g. via taxes/marketing restrictions), production, and sales vary widely across countries and regions [9].

Recent estimates show global prevalence of current SLT use to be 5.6% [8]. South East Asia bears a disproportionately high burden with a prevalence of 17.9% [8]. African prevalence stands at 2.8% [8]. Some of the previously observed patterns of use include predominant daily use [9, 13], and dual-use corresponding to underlying SLT and smoked tobacco prevalences [9, 14]. Some of the factors that have been found to be associated with SLT use include increasing age, male gender, lower educational attainment and lack of awareness of consequent health risks [7, 10, 1317].

Evidence on SLT use prevalence and its associated factors in Nigeria is sparse. A recent national survey, the 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) revealed female and male prevalences of 0.1% and 1.2% respectively [18]. But the NDHS methodology only takes a cursory look at tobacco use and associated factors in a narrower age band compared to the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS). A localised isolated study in Northern Nigeria showed a prevalence of 7.49% [7]. The need to study SLT use in Nigeria becomes more important as there is an anticipated increased prevalence from addicted smokers seeking alternative nicotine sources as tobacco control efforts emphasizing on smoked tobacco [19, 20] become intensified and more effective.

In 2012, the only Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) in Nigeria till date was carried out to “establish baseline information on tobacco use and tobacco control measures in a nationally representative sample with regard to exposure to secondhand smoke, cessation, risk perceptions, knowledge and attitudes, exposure to media, price and taxation issues by using a global standard protocol adapted to country-specific context” [1]. We analyzed smokeless tobacco data from this survey to determine the prevalence, patterns of use and underlying correlates in Nigerian adults to guide targeted control efforts. With the passing of the Nigeria Tobacco Control Act 2015, findings from the analysis will provide baseline country-specific information for future evaluation of the impact of the legislation in the control of tobacco use. It will also provide valuable information to enable appropriate emphasis on SLT in the development of guidelines and other regulations critical for the control of tobacco use in Nigeria.

Materials and methods

Study area

Nigeria is located in West Africa between latitudes 4°16'N and 13°53'N North and longitudes 2°40'E and 14°41'E with a land area of 923,768 square kilometres. It has Africa’s largest population, estimated at 214,028,302 [21]. Nigeria is Africa's largest economy, with 2017 GDP (purchasing power parity) estimated at US$1.121 trillion [21]. Agriculture is a significant sector of the economy especially as regards engagement of labour. Cash crops including tobacco account for a significant part of agricultural activities. Nigeria is home to transnational tobacco companies, including British America Tobacco Nigeria and Japan Tobacco International. Historically, the SLT products available locally have been unbranded and unpackaged cottage samples made by sun-drying or fire-curing, branded sources have been negligible [22, 23].

The history of anti-tobacco legislation started in 1958 with the Tobacco Ordinance [20], followed in 1990 by the Tobacco Smoking Control Decree 20 [1]. The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) was signed and ratified in 2004 and 2005 respectively [1]. The National Tobacco Control Act (the NTCA) [19], a law to domesticate the WHO FCTC was enacted in 2015.

Data sources

This study used data from the 2012 GATS conducted in Nigeria [1], the only one done in the country till date. GATS is the flagship survey for adult tobacco use and control surveillance [24]. In Nigeria, the implementing agency for GATS was the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) with oversight from the Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH). The World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided technical support. The Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use provided funding [1].

The survey design, using a multistage stratified cluster sampling technique, enables the generation of precise national level estimates, by geographical locality (urban/rural) and gender. It also allows for the comparison of estimates among the six regions of Nigeria [1]. Within each state, a sample of enumeration areas (EAs) were systematically selected from a master sample, with probability proportional size (PPS). These EAs constituted the primary sampling units (PSU) for the survey. A systematic sample of households (secondary sampling units, SSU) were selected from each EA, and then an eligible individual from each selected household. A total of 1,100 EAs (300 urban and 800 rural) were selected, and from these 11,1107 households (5,776 urban and 5,331 rural) [1]. The study population for this household survey was non-institutionalised individuals 15 years of age and older. The data were collected at two levels, the household and individual levels. Out of the 11,107 households sampled, screening was completed by 9,911. Interviews were completed for 9,765 individuals (one individual randomly chosen from each selected household). The overall, household and individual response rates were 89.1%, 90.3% and 98.6% respectively [1].

Variables

Outcome variable

Current smokeless tobacco use was assessed using respondents’ self-report of current daily, less than daily or none use of smokeless tobacco. Daily and less than daily (occasional) current users were classified as current smokeless tobacco users. Dual users were current users of both smokeless and smoked tobacco.

Independent variables

The socio-demographic variables included sex, age, urban/rural residence, region, level of education, and employment status. Some of the variables were re-coded to attain reasonable sample sizes, and also based on suggestions in the literature. Age in years was recoded into 4 groups, “15–24”, “25–44”, “45–64”, and “65+” years. With regards to the level of education, “no formal education” was unaltered, “less than primary completed” and “primary completed” were recoded as “primary”, “junior secondary completed” and “senior secondary completed” were recoded as “secondary”, “less than college/university completed” and “college/university completed” were recoded as “post-secondary”. For employment status, “self-employed”, “student”, and “home maker” were unaltered, while “government employee” and “non-government employee” were recoded to “employee”, and “retired”, “unemployed able to work”, “unemployed unable to work” were grouped together.

Perceived risk of smokeless tobacco use was assessed using a question that asked, “Based on what you know or believe, does using smokeless tobacco cause serious illness?” The possible responses were “yes”, “no”, and “don’t know”. “No” and ‘don’t know” were recoded together for this study.

Data analysis

We used SPSS version 23 to perform the data analysis. Frequencies and proportions were generated to describe the distribution of the independent and outcome variables. We used the Chi-Square test to assess bivariate associations between independent variables and current smokeless tobacco use. A binary logistic regression model was also developed for predictors of current smokeless tobacco use. The enter variable selection method was used in building the regression model. All statistical tests were set at 5% level of significance, and all analyses were conducted with sample-weighted data.

Ethical considerations

This study was a secondary analysis of an open source dataset which was downloaded from the Global Tobacco Surveillance System Data (GTSS Data) [25], a web-based application domiciled within the CDC website, that houses and displays data from four tobacco-related surveys conducted around the world. The survey data sets used in this study were completely anonymous. The GATS Nigeria protocols were approved by the CDC. During the survey, data collectors obtained written informed consent of participants. In addition, written informed parental consent was obtained where participant was 17 years old or less. Interviewers ensured the confidentiality of the data they had collected and signed the GATS statement on confidentiality [1].

Results

Participation rates and socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 9765 respondents were studied. Their basic characteristics are as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of Nigerian adults.

Variables (N = 9765)
% 95% C.I.
Age group (years)
15–24 34.4 32.9, 35.9
25–44 43.8 42.3, 45.2
45–64 16.2 15.2, 17.3
65+ 5.6 5.0, 6.2
Sex
Male 50.0 48.5, 51.6
Female 50.0 48.4, 51.5
Residence
Urban 37.0 33.9, 40.1
Rural 63.0 59.9, 66.1
Level of education* (n = 9753)
No formal education 31.0 29.2, 32.8
Primary or less 19.2 18.1, 20.5
Secondary 38.0 36.4, 39.7
Post-secondary 11.8 10.7, 13.0
Employment status* (n = 9756)
Employee 10.7 9.8, 11.8
Self-employed 49.4 47.7, 51.1
Student 18.7 17.4, 20.1
Home maker 14.0 13.0, 15.1
Retired/Unemployed 7.2 6.3, 8.0
Region
North-Central 13.7 12.6, 14.9
North-East 12.4 11.3, 13.6
North-West 23.1 21.6, 24.7
South-East 12.8 11.5, 14.1
South-South 16.2 14.9, 17.7
South-West 21.8 20.3, 23.3

*Variables with missing data

Prevalence and patterns of current smokeless tobacco use

The prevalence of smokeless tobacco use among Nigerians aged 15 years and above was 1.9% (95% CI: 1.6%-2.3%). The sex-specific analysis shows a prevalence of 3.0% (95% CI: 2.4%-3.7%) in males and 0.9% (95% CI: 0.7%-1.2%) in females. About three-quarters of this 1.9%, i.e., 1.4% (95% CI: 1.1%-1.8%) of the total adult population were daily users while the rest use smokeless tobacco occasionally. About 0.2% (95% CI: 0.1%-0.4%) of the whole population use both smoked and smokeless tobacco. Furthermore, Fig 1 shows the various types of smokeless tobacco currently used by adults in Nigeria. The highest was snuff by nose, followed by snuff by mouth and other types comprising of drinking and chewing tobacco.

Fig 1. Prevalence of types of current smokeless use in the population†.

Fig 1

* Chewing and drinking tobacco. † These categories are not mutually exclusive.

Perception of risk of smokeless tobacco use

With regards to the population’s perception of the harmfulness of smokeless tobacco use, 31.1% (95% CI: 29.4%-32.9%) of Nigerian adults were either unaware or perceived smokeless tobacco to be harmless.

Determinants of current smokeless tobacco use

Table 2 shows the bivariate associations between selected independent factors and current smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults 15 years and above. All the variables were found to be statistically significant. Higher age groups above 64 years (8.3%), males (3.0%), rural dwellers (2.3%), those with no formal education (2.8%), self-employed (2.9%) and from the south-east region (4.7%) had the highest relative prevalence of use.

Table 2. Association between selected characteristics and current smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults.

Variables (N = 9747) Current Smokeless tobacco use status (%) Crude Odds Ratio (cOR) cOR 95% CI P-value
User Non-user
Age group (years) <0.001
65+ 8.3 91.7 39.29 13.44–114.87
45–64 5.1 94.9 23.46 8.04–68.48
25–44 1.3 98.7 5.48 1.86–16.09
15–24 0.2 99.8 1 -
Sex <0.001
Male 3.0 97.0 3.38 2.31–4.93
Female 0.9 99.1 1 -
Residence 0.001
Rural 1.3 98.7 1.85 1.27–2.71
Urban 2.3 97.7 1 -
Level of education* (n = 9735) <0.001
No formal education 2.8 97.2 3.13 1.47–6.65
Primary or less 2.6 97.4 2,83 1.33–6.02
Secondary 1.1 98.9 1.24 0.57–2.70
Post-secondary 0.9 99.1 1 -
Employment status* (n = 9738) <0.001
Employee 1.3 98.7 3.77 1.01–13.99
Self-employed 2.9 97.1 8.27 2.57–26.57
Home maker 0.8 99.2 2.13 0.57–7.99
Retired/Unemployed 2.5 97.5 7.20 2.09–24.82
Student 0.4 99.6 1 -
Region <0.001
South-East 4.7 95.3 23.51 8.89–62.15
North-East 3.0 97.0 14.54 4.81–43.95
North-Central 3.2 96.8 16.02 5.86–43.82
South-West 1.3 98.7 6.22 2.28–16.96
South-South 1.2 98.8 5.74 2.02–16.35
North-West 0.2 99.8 1 -
Risk perception* (n = 9736) <0.001
Not harmful/Don’t know 3.9 96.1 4.01 2.81–5.73
Harmful 1.0 99.0 1 -

*Variables with missing data.

†P-value for the Chi-square test

Table 3 shows the predictors of smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults. Significant predictors of use include age group, sex, place of residence, region and risk perception. Those 45–64 years had 10 times (OR = 10.00; 95% CI: 4.12–24.29) higher odds of SLT use compared to those 15–24 years, those 65 years and above had similar odds (OR = 9.70; 95% CI: 3.51–26.79). Males were found to have about 4 times (OR = 4.43; 95% CI: 2.75–7.11) higher odds than females. Rural dwellers had about 1.5 times (OR = 1.56; 95% CI: 1.04–2.35) higher odds than urban dwellers. The south-east region had about 14 times (OR = 13.99; 95% CI: 4.45–43.95) higher odds followed by the north-east with similar odds (OR = 13.63; 95% CI: 4.75–39.16). Those who were either unaware or perceived SLT not to be harmful had about 4 times (OR = 3.81; 95% CI: 2.61–5.56) higher odds relative to those who perceived it as harmful.

Table 3. Predictors of current smokeless tobacco use amongst Nigerian adults.

Variables Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) aOR 95% CI P-value
Age group (years)
65+ 9.70 3.51–26.79* <0.001
45–64 10.00 4.12–24.29* <0.001
25–44 3.41 1.43–8.09* 0.006
15–24 1 - -
Sex
Male 4.43 2.75–7.11* <0.001
Female 1 - -
Residence
Rural 1.56 1.04–2.35 0.034
Urban 1 - -
Level of education
No formal education 2.67 1.01–7.05 0.047
Primary or less 1.84 0.76–4.46 0.175
Secondary 1.69 0.73–3.92 0.219
Post-secondary 1 - -
Employment status
Employee 0.29 0.07–1.21 0.088
Self-employed 0.51 0.14–1.83 0.300
Home maker 0.43 0.10–1.82 0.248
Retired/Unemployed 0.60 0.15–2.37 0.467
Student 1 - -
Region
South-East 13.99 4.45–43.95* <0.001
North-East 13.63 4.75–39.16* <0.001
North-Central 11.52 3.76–35.32* <0.001
South-West 7.24 2.35–22.32* 0.001
South-South 3.82 1.12–13.04* 0.032
North-West 1 - -
Risk perception
Not harmful/Don’t know 3.81 2.61–5.56* <0.001
Harmful 1 - -

*Statistically significant

Discussion

This study examined the prevalence, patterns and underlying risk factors for smokeless tobacco use among non-institutionalised Nigerian adults. The findings show a relatively low prevalence. The commonest form of use was snuff by nose, with a majority as daily users. Proper perception of risk of use was low and some of the determinants of use included low risk perception, male sex, increasing age, rural residence, no formal education and residence in the north- and south-eastern regions of the country.

The overall prevalence of SLT use in the study population appeared low in comparison to recent global and African averages [8], and a previous study in a city in the north-east of Nigeria [7], similar to figures from a secondary analysis of data from the 2013 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) [2], and higher than figures from the 2018 NDHS [18]. The low figures in comparison to the global average is due to the high prevalence rates in the South-East Asian region which bears about 80% of SLT use burden and where nearly 20% of the population use SLT [8]. Analysis of large population-based surveys across Africa have also shown a low prevalence of SLT use among men and women in West Africa as compared to other regions [26], findings probably accounted for by varying cultural and social norms. The north-eastern region of Nigeria has consistently shown a higher level of SLT use as revealed in the index study as well, this due to a high level of social acceptance of SLT [7]. The NDHS findings in combination with ours, seem to suggest a downward trend, but the differing methodologies, and just 2 time points preclude the validity of this conclusion.

Most of the SLT users in our study were daily users. This is similar to findings in Pakistan [13], as well as in Bangladesh, India and Myanmar [9]. This relative preponderance of daily users is likely due to the well-established addiction initiating and perpetuating effects of nicotine, a notable challenge to tobacco cessation interventions. SLT users are known to crave and continue to use it even when harmful to their health, they sometimes switch to products with higher nicotine levels, and are not able to sustain attempts at cessation of use [27]. In an earlier study among an elderly Nigerian population half of the respondents were dependent on snuff [28]. A much lower proportion of the aggregate Nigerian population were dual (smoked and smokeless) tobacco users relative to figures from India [14], Bangladesh [9] and north-east Nigeria [7]. This difference is reflective of the already documented higher prevalence of the individual products in these other populations. Dual-use is an important public health metric as dual users when compared with single users, are at a greater risk for morbidity and mortality [29]. Snuff by nose was the predominant SLT type, followed by snuff by mouth. A negligible proportion used other forms such as chewing and drinking tobacco. Other local studies have shown similar patterns [2, 7]. There are two main types of smokeless tobacco: snuff (moist and dry) and chewing tobacco [30], the specific types, formulations and names vary significantly by country and region [9]. The moist snuff predominates in Africa generally [31], but the dry snuff most commonly inhaled through the nose, is historically and culturally local to Nigeria, Cameroon, Senegal and Chad [9].

A significant percentage of the population was unaware of the risk of serious illness due to SLT use. This was much higher than what was found in Uganda amongst a similar population [10] as well as for cigarette use in our study population [1]. Some of the reasons behind this comparative lower levels of awareness include social acceptance [7], regular use of SLT products in social and traditional gatherings such as marriages [9, 31], perceived medicinal properties [7, 9], marketing of SLT as a convenient and harm reducing alternative to cigarette smoking, and less emphasis on SLT use control as compared to cigarette smoking [9]. These factors independently and through the mediating effect of lower levels of awareness of harm may serve as critical drivers of increased SLT use in response to intensified marketing efforts, while also impinging on efforts at getting users to quit. Well-designed, sustained, comprehensive health education efforts and enlightenment campaigns will serve to attenuate the effect of the interplay of these factors.

There were significantly higher odds of current SLT use associated with increasing age, male gender, rural location, having no formal education, having no perception of risk of SLT use and living in all other regions of the country as compared to the north-west. Increasing age has been severally found to be associated with SLT use [7, 13, 16, 17]. With the difficulty of cessation for earlier onset users, newer users are cumulatively added to older cohorts thus increasing the likelihood in older age. It is also thought that there might be a switch from smoked to smokeless tobacco in the later stages of the lifespan in a bid to minimise perceived health risks while retaining the nicotine addiction [32]. Other studies also agree with the higher odds of use in males [7, 13, 16], and this is likely due to their higher risk-taking behaviour and cultural/social acceptance. The higher rural burdens similarly reported previously seem to stem from the fact that SLTs are integral to many social gatherings [31] such as traditional marriages which are domiciled in the rural areas. And even though SLT products available in Africa range from manufactured to home-made, most are home-made and these are more likely to be used by rural dwellers [31]. Our findings are also consistent with a widely documented [7, 14, 15] inverse relationship between educational attainment and SLT use. This relationship may be linked to these individuals’ knowledge and therefore perception about the possible harmful effects of SLT use, another significant predictor of use in the study population. Those unaware of these risks were significantly more likely to use SLT, similar to a Ugandan study [10]. Regional differences have been shown in other countries [16, 33], but since this is the first detailed national-level study of SLT use in Nigeria, there are no similar study results to compare it to. These differences are likely due to long-standing cultural differences and social norms.

The current study had some strengths and limitations. With regards to the strengths, the sample size was large enough to ensure the validity of the various analyses and sub-group analyses. Secondly, these respondents were selected using systematic and rigorous methods that ensured a good representation of the sub-groups represented within the larger Nigerian population. Therefore, these findings are generalisable to the population. The first limitation derives from the cross-sectional study design so that a temporal sequence is not demonstrable between independent variables and the outcome variable. Interpretations of associations should therefore, be cautiously made. Secondly, all the information especially the history of SLT use as obtained during the survey, is self-reported with no measured bio-markers for verification. In the relatively conservative Nigerian context, there could have been under-reporting due to the desire for conformity to social norms. Thirdly, there were missing data for certain key variables, but the proportions in all cases were likely not high enough to introduce any form of bias. Also, samples were restricted to persons living in non-institutionalized households, thus excluding residents of military barracks and dormitories. The generalisability of our findings to these excluded settings may therefore not be valid. Finally, the time lag between data collection and documentation of these findings is significant with the possibility that current realities may be different.

Despite these limitations, this study is strong enough to provide useful information about the use of SLT products in Nigeria and would be important to guide future research on SLT consumption. It would also help health policy-makers in planning tobacco control measures in Nigeria.

Conclusions

Our study provides information about prevalence and patterns of SLT use among non-institutionalised adults in Nigeria and confirms that SLT use was higher among those with low-risk perception of SLT use, men, the older adults, rural residents, those with no formal education and residents of the north- and south-eastern regions of the country. A significant and comparatively high proportion of the population was not aware of the harmful effects of SLT use. Policymakers should consider the social distribution of use to provide context-specific SLT prevention and control strategies. There should be an emphasis on intense educational and enlightenment campaigns on the risks involved in SLT use so as to reduce the proportion of those unaware of use risk. Policymakers need to consider SLT use separately in tobacco control efforts since the risk factors and health effects of SLT use are different from that of smoking. It is also noteworthy that a follow-up GATS survey in Nigeria is long overdue.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in this study are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at this URL: https://nccd.cdc.gov/GTSSDataSurveyResources/Ancillary/DataReports.aspx?CAID=2&Survey=4&WHORegion=3&Country=230&Site=556000.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Federal Ministry of Health. Global Adult Tobacco Survey: Nigeria country report 2012. Abuja, Nigeria; 2012.
  • 2.Aniwada EC, Uleanya ND, Ossai EN, Nwobi EA, Anibueze M. Tobacco use: prevalence, pattern, and predictors, among those aged 15–49 years in Nigeria, a secondary data analysis. Tob Induc Dis. 2018;16(7):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO Report on the global Tobacco epidemic, 2019: Offer help to quit tobacco use. Geneva, Switzerland; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.World Health Organisation (WHO). World No Tobacco Day 2018: Tobacco breaks hearts–choose health, not tobacco. Geneva, Switzerland; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD Compare Tool: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Feb 18]. Available from: https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/
  • 6.World Health Organisation (WHO). Who framework convention on tobacco control. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Desalu O, Iseh K, Olokoba A, Salawu F, Danburam A. Smokeless tobacco use in adult Nigerian population. Niger J Clin Pract. 2010;13(4):382–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO global report on trends in prevalence of tobacco use 2000–2025, third edition. Geneva, Switzerland; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smokeless Tobacco and Public Health: A Global Perspective. Bethesda, MD; 2014.
  • 10.Kabwama SN, Kadobera D, Ndyanabangi S. Perceptions about the harmfulness of tobacco among adults in Uganda: Findings from the 2013 Global Adult Tobacco Survey. Tob Induc Dis. 2018;16(59):1–7. 10.18332/tid/99574 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.International Agency for Research on Cancer. A review of human carcinogens. Part E: Personal habits and indoor combustions. Lyon, France; 2012. (IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans; vol. 100E). Report No.: 100E. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 12.Saqib MAN, Rafique I, Qureshi H, Munir MA, Bashir R, Arif BW, et al. Burden of Tobacco in Pakistan: Findings From Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2014. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018;20(9):1138–43. 10.1093/ntr/ntx179 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Naz S, Naz S, Saqib MAN, Bashir F, Rafique I. Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco Use in Pakistan Insight from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey Pakistan (GATS Pakistan-2014). J Pakistan Med Assoc. 2018;68(5 Suppl 2):S7–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Singh A, Arora M, English DR, Mathur MR. Socioeconomic Gradients in Different Types of Tobacco Use in India: Evidence from Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2009–10. Biomed Res Int. 2015;1–9. 10.1155/2015/837804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Sreeramareddy CT, Pradhan PMS, Mir IA, Sin S. Smoking and smokeless tobacco use in nine South and Southeast Asian countries: prevalence estimates and social determinants from Demographic and Health Surveys. Popul Health Metr. 2014;12(22):1–16. 10.1186/s12963-014-0022-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sreeramareddy CT, Ramakrishnareddy N, Harsha Kumar HN, 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. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy [Internet]. 2011;6(33):1–9. Available from: http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/6/1/33 10.1186/1747-597X-6-33 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ayo-Yusuf O, Omole O. Snuff use and the risk for hypertension among black South African women. SA Fam Pr. 2008;50(2):64a–64c. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.National Population Commission (NPC), ICF. Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey 2018. Abuja, Nigeria, and Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2019.
  • 19.Federal Republic of Nigeria. National Tobacco Control Act, 2015. Act No 9 Nigeria; 2015.
  • 20.Ukwueze F, Ogbuabor C, Okiche E. Tobacco Control Legislation and Policy in Nigeria: Much Barking Without Biting. Elixir Inter Law. 2018;114:49641–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Central Intelligence Agency. The world Factbook: Nigeria [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ni.html
  • 22.Orisakwe OE, Igweze ZN, Okolo KO, Ajaezi GC. Heavy metal hazards of Nigerian smokeless tobacco. Tob Control. 2014;23:513–7. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050955 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Euromonitor International. Smokeless Tobacco in Nigeria: Executive summary [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Aug 17]. Available from: https://www.euromonitor.com/smokeless-tobacco-in-nigeria/report
  • 24.Global Adult Tobacco Survey Collaborative Group. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS): Sample Design Manual, Version 2.0. Atlanta; 2010.
  • 25.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS)–Datasets for African Region, Nigeria 2012 [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2020 Aug 12]. Available from: https://nccd.cdc.gov/GTSSDataSurveyResources/Ancillary/DataReports.aspx?CAID=2&Survey=4&WHORegion=3&Country=230&Site=556000
  • 26.Sreeramareddy CT, Pradhan PM, Sin S. Prevalence, distribution, and social determinants of tobacco use in 30 sub-Saharan African countries. BMC Med. 2014;12(243):1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Smokeless Tobacco and Some Tobacco-specific N -Nitrosamines. Lyon, France; 2007. (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans; vol. 89). [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 28.Uwakwe R. The pattern of psychiatric disorders among the aged in a selected community in Nigeria. Int J Geriat Psychiatry. 2000;15(4):355–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rahman MA, Zaman MM. Smoking and smokeless tobacco consumption: Possible risk factors for coronary heart disease among young patients attending a tertiary care cardiac hospital in Bangladesh. Public Health [Internet]. 2008;122(12):1331–8. Available from: 10.1016/j.puhe.2008.05.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shafey O, Eriksen M, Ross H, Mackay J. The Tobacco Atlas 3rd editio Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hau K, Olsheski K, Katwala P, Wiley R. Oral and Systemic Effects of Smokeless Tobacco from the African, Asian, Latin American, European, and Middle Eastern Regions. J Dent Oral Heal. 2017;3(1):1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Islam FMA, Walton A. Tobacco Smoking and Use of Smokeless Tobacco and Their Association with Psychological Distress and Other Factors in a Rural District in Bangladesh: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Environ Public Health. 2019;1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Singh A, Ladusingh L. Prevalence and Determinants of Tobacco Use in India: Evidence from Recent Global Adult Tobacco Survey Data. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114073 10.1371/journal.pone.0114073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Stanton A Glantz

16 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-25941

Prevalence, patterns and risk factors of smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults: An analysis of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Onoh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stanton A. Glantz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please state whether you accounted for regional clustering of the data in your statistical analyses. Did you consider using multilevel models. If not, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

3. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I appreciate author for selecting this topic for research. The article is nicely written however following are the few comments that need to be addressed

Sampling details in methodology need to be mentioned briefly. Although author has cited the final report yet brief details of household and participant selection may be provided in methods section.

Details regarding ethical review committee clearance or statement regarding work carried out as per Helsinki declaration need to be mentioned in text for the survey (from which data has been used for secondary analysis)

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-20-25941

The manuscript is a secondary analysis of 2012 GATS data in which the authors examine SLT use among Nigerian adults. The authors report that current SLT use was more common for those living in specific parts of the country, for those who were middle-aged, and for those who had lower harm perceptions. The paper is generally well-written. The topic is potentially important and results could lay the groundwork for future research that would increase understanding of and seek to address SLT use among Nigerians.

Comments

1. The abstract should probably include at least a brief indication of the rationale of the study – ie, the extent to which SLT use among Nigerian adults is a problem.

2. The title refers to prevalence, patterns, and risk factors, but I think something more like “prevalence and correlates” would be more accurate given the cross-sectional nature of the data. This arises again at the end of the intro.

3. On lines 54-55 the authors make the point that less attention has been paid to the “similarly harmful” SLT. It may be worth adding the difference in prevalence here, which is likely the reason for the difference in attention.

4. On line 68 a modifier is needed – is this prevalence of current use? And how is that operationalized? This is true of the rates in the next paragraph as well.

5. In the methods section, given the non-experimental methodology, the labels “dependent variable” and “independent variables” are not correct. There is no IV manipulation. These should be outcome and predictor variables or something similar.

6. Because there were no hypotheses I wonder whether the alpha level should be adjusted? Given the sample size it is unlikely to make much difference.

7. Suggest re-writing line 172 a bit. It could be read to suggest that very few were daily users (1.4% of 1.9% would be roughly 0.3%) but I believe this is 1.4% of the total, ie most who were current users were daily users.

8. Lines 182 and 198, recommend rewording “ignorant”.

9. I appreciate the way that the authors interpreted their ORs. I’m not sure there is value in both Tables 2 and 3 though and would suggest eliminating the former.

10. Is there any value in looking for differences by route of administration?

11. Line 245 refers to “drinking tobacco”; it is unclear what this means.

12. What do the authors make of the apparent contradiction between low levels of awareness of SLT harms and low prevalence?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Ibrar Rafique

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0245114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245114.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Dec 2020

Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme

15th December, 2020

Dear Dr Glantz,

Response to Reviewers: PONE-D-20-25941

Thank you for the careful review of our manuscript. After careful consideration of the reviews, I hereby write this rebuttal letter to respond to the points and comments raised by the reviewers.

The following are the responses to the points raised by the reviewers:

A. Response to Academic Editor:

1. Comment:

Please state whether you accounted for regional clustering of the data in your statistical analyses. Did you consider using multilevel models? If not, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

Response:

In the first part of our analyses (descriptive and bivariate), we did not need to account for clustering, but for unequal sampling probabilities of the complex survey design. We used a design-based approach to specify the complex survey design variables such as sampling weight, stratum and cluster to ensure that the unequal sampling probabilities are adjusted for thus yielding valid population parameters.

Before commenting on the second part of our analyses, it would be necessary to clearly understand the unique sample design features of the Nigerian 2012 GATS. The entire country was first stratified by its 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory within 6 regions. Within each state and by extension region, a sample of enumeration areas (EAs) were systematically selected from a master sample, with probability proportional size (PPS). These EAs constituted the primary sampling units (PSU) for the survey. A systematic sample of households (secondary sampling units, SSU) were selected from each EA, and then an eligible individual from each selected household. These EAs were mostly arbitrary creations with their aim being to aid operationalisation of the 2006 census. Even though they may correspond sometimes, they are not strict natural subdivisions with shared social commonalities.

The second part of our analyses, the regression modelling, is where accounting for the effect of clustering on the relationships between multiple levels of variables and SLT use with the aid of multilevel modelling was desired. However, there are a few points to note about multilevel modelling. Multilevel models (MLMs) facilitate inferences regarding variability among randomly selected clusters (e.g. EAs) in outcomes of interest and identify covariates that explain the variance in a given outcome at each level of a particular data hierarchy. The key thing that defines a variable as being a level (EAs and households/individuals) is that its units can be regarded as a random sample from a wider population of units, but this does not preclude the concept of natural clustering at higher divisions (states and regions) not accounted for in the sample design.

The primary difficulty with the use of multilevel modelling in complex survey data revolves around incorporating sampling weights into the models. Failure to account for the unequal selection probabilities using sampling weights in MLMs can lead to biased parameter estimates. Including the weights as raw weights instead of correctly ‘scaled’ weights results in biased parameters and standard errors. A major practical obstacle in pseudo-maximum-likelihood (the underlying estimation approach for MLM that accounts for stratification, clustering and weighting) estimation for multilevel modelling of complex survey data is that most publicly available data do not include weights for each level of analysis. Most of them include only a single overall weighting variable for the lowest level units, whereas the pseudo-maximum-likelihood approach requires the weights corresponding to the levels of the hierarchical sampling design. If the sampling weights are ignored at either level, the parameter estimates can be substantially biased.

In as much as MLM was desired and considered, we were unable to employ this approach for a few reasons. Sample weights were only available at the individual level. Due to the nature and origin of the EA (the clustering variable by design), we considered it implausible as an important source of dependency in SLT use. There were also no cluster or higher-level variables available for building an MLM.

We therefore did not account for regional clustering as this could only be done using MLMs. Even if we were able to build an MLM, it would have been difficult to incorporate region as a level due to the survey’s particular sampling design.

2. Comment:

Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Response: Effected by amending the title in the manuscript

B. Response to Reviewer #1:

1. Comment:

Sampling details in methodology need to be mentioned briefly. Although author has cited the final report yet brief details of household and participant selection may be provided in methods section.

Response: This has been done by adding brief details of stages of sampling.

2. Comment:

Details regarding ethical review committee clearance or statement regarding work carried out as per Helsinki declaration need to be mentioned in text for the survey (from which data has been used for secondary analysis)

Response: Further information on ethical considerations as available in the survey report has been added.

C. Response to Reviewer #2:

1. Comment:

The abstract should probably include at least a brief indication of the rationale of the study – ie, the extent to which SLT use among Nigerian adults is a problem.

Response: Minimal work has been done in this regard, and this was the major reason for this study. The 3rd sentence in the introduction to the abstract has been modified to reflect this.

2. Comment:

The title refers to prevalence, patterns, and risk factors, but I think something more like “prevalence and correlates” would be more accurate given the cross-sectional nature of the data. This arises again at the end of the intro.

Response: This has been noted and correction effected in the title, abstract and introduction.

3. Comment:

On lines 54-55 the authors make the point that less attention has been paid to the “similarly harmful” SLT. It may be worth adding the difference in prevalence here, which is likely the reason for the difference in attention.

Response: This has been added in the preceding sentence

4. Comment:

On line 68 a modifier is needed – is this prevalence of current use? And how is that operationalized? This is true of the rates in the next paragraph as well.

Response: It has been indicated that this prevalence speaks about current use as all quoted prevalences. The operationalization is as obtained in all GATS surveys: the numerator is number of current daily and less than daily smokeless tobacco users while the denominator is total number of respondents. The operationalization for the Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) is similar.

5. Comment:

In the methods section, given the non-experimental methodology, the labels “dependent variable” and “independent variables” are not correct. There is no IV manipulation. These should be outcome and predictor variables or something similar.

Response: “Dependent” has been changed to “Outcome”, but we have decided to retain the use of “independent” as we believe the term “predictor” is more suggestive of causation or dependence.

6. Comment:

Because there were no hypotheses I wonder whether the alpha level should be adjusted? Given the sample size it is unlikely to make much difference.

Response: We have to chosen to retain the alpha level at 5%.

7. Comment:

Suggest re-writing line 172 a bit. It could be read to suggest that very few were daily users (1.4% of 1.9% would be roughly 0.3%) but I believe this is 1.4% of the total, ie most who were current users were daily users.

Response: It has been re-written to read “About three-quarters of this 1.9%, i.e., 1.4% (95% CI: 1.1%-1.8%) of the total adult population were daily users…”

8. Comment:

Lines 182 and 198, recommend rewording “ignorant”.

Response: This has been reworded to read “unaware”

9. Comment:

I appreciate the way that the authors interpreted their ORs. I’m not sure there is value in both Tables 2 and 3 though and would suggest eliminating the former.

Response: We appreciate this suggestion, but we have retained both tables as the contrast between the two demonstrates the effect of “adjustment” on the relationships between the factors and SLT use.

10. Comment:

Is there any value in looking for differences by route of administration?

Response: We do not see any extra utility in exploring differences by route of administration. In addition, due to the small numbers and percentages involved, these sub-group analyses may yield a lot of invalid results.

11. Comment:

Line 245 refers to “drinking tobacco”; it is unclear what this means.

Response: Smoking tobacco is a relatively uncommon form of use that involves boiling tobacco in water and drinking the water afterwards.

12. Comment:

What do the authors make of the apparent contradiction between low levels of awareness of SLT harms and low prevalence?

Response: The use of the term “low levels of awareness of SLT harm” is relative to levels for manufactured cigarettes and other countries. However, as much as 68.9% of Nigerian adults, a clear majority, are aware of SLT harm. Note that awareness of harm is not the only factor driving levels of use. There are other critical drivers such as cultural and social norms, and acceptability of the habit. The key thing about awareness levels and use status from our study is that there is a clear association between lack of awareness of harm and likelihood of use.

Yours sincerely,

Ikenna Onoh MBBS, MSc

Resident, Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme

ikeonoh@yahoo.com; +2347036354733

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Stanton A Glantz

17 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-25941R1

Prevalence, patterns and correlates of smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults: An analysis of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Onoh,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In your abstract you say, “However, the perception of possible harm from its use was low. We recommended targeted interventions to increase awareness of the harmful effects.”  Your response to Reviewer 1 had a more specific and informative statement:  “The use of the term “low levels of awareness of SLT harm” is relative to levels for manufactured cigarettes and other countries. However, as much as 68.9% of Nigerian adults, a clear majority, are aware of SLT harm. Note that awareness of harm is not the only factor driving levels of use. There are other critical drivers such as cultural and social norms, and acceptability of the habit. The key thing about awareness levels and use status from our study is that there is a clear association between lack of awareness of harm and likelihood of use.”

Please revise the abstract, discussion and conclusion of the paper to reflect this more sophisticated explanation.  Please also discuss the “other factors” driving use and how consideration of those factors could inform prevention efforts.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 31 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Stanton A. Glantz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 6;16(1):e0245114. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245114.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


21 Dec 2020

Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme

22nd December, 2020

Dear Dr Glantz,

Response to Reviewers: PONE-D-20-25941

Thank you for the careful review of our manuscript. After careful consideration of the reviews, I hereby write this rebuttal letter to respond to the points and comments raised by the reviewers.

The following are the responses to the points you raised:

A. Response to Academic Editor:

1. Comment:

In your abstract you say, “However, the perception of possible harm from its use was low. We recommended targeted interventions to increase awareness of the harmful effects.” Your response to Reviewer 1 had a more specific and informative statement: “The use of the term “low levels of awareness of SLT harm” is relative to levels for manufactured cigarettes and other countries. However, as much as 68.9% of Nigerian adults, a clear majority, are aware of SLT harm. Note that awareness of harm is not the only factor driving levels of use. There are other critical drivers such as cultural and social norms, and acceptability of the habit. The key thing about awareness levels and use status from our study is that there is a clear association between lack of awareness of harm and likelihood of use.”

Please revise the abstract, discussion and conclusion of the paper to reflect this more sophisticated explanation. Please also discuss the “other factors” driving use and how consideration of those factors could inform prevention efforts.

Response:

Adjustments have been made to reflect this more sophisticated explanation as advised. These adjustments are in the concluding part of the abstract, the paragraph spanning lines 262 to 273 of the revised unmarked manuscript and in the conclusion.

Yours sincerely,

Ikenna Onoh MBBS, MSc

Resident, Nigeria Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Programme

ikeonoh@yahoo.com; +2347036354733

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Stanton A Glantz

23 Dec 2020

Prevalence, patterns and correlates of smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults: An analysis of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey

PONE-D-20-25941R2

Dear Dr. Onoh,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Stanton A. Glantz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Stanton A Glantz

28 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-25941R2

Prevalence, patterns and correlates of smokeless tobacco use in Nigerian adults: An analysis of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey

Dear Dr. Onoh:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Stanton A. Glantz

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in this study are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at this URL: https://nccd.cdc.gov/GTSSDataSurveyResources/Ancillary/DataReports.aspx?CAID=2&Survey=4&WHORegion=3&Country=230&Site=556000.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES