hookah smoking the past and future of tobacco
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Hookah Smoking: The Past and Future of Tobacco?

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 84

Hookah Smoking: - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 613 Views
  • Uploaded on

Hookah Smoking: The Past and Future of Tobacco? Brian Primack, MD, EdM, MS Assistant Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics May 2008 Terminology Hookah Waterpipe Shisha-Pipe Narghile Bong Hubble-bubble www.hookah-bars.com Hours Sunday – Thursday: 4 PM – 12:30 AM

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Hookah Smoking:' - adamdaniel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
hookah smoking the past and future of tobacco

Hookah Smoking:The Past and Future of Tobacco?

Brian Primack, MD, EdM, MS

Assistant Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics

May 2008

terminology
Terminology
  • Hookah
  • Waterpipe
  • Shisha-Pipe
  • Narghile
  • Bong
  • Hubble-bubble
hours
Hours
  • Sunday – Thursday: 4 PM – 12:30 AM
  • Friday – Saturday: 4 PM – 2 AM
flavors
Fruit

Apple

Banana

Cherry

Melon

Candy

Bubble gum

Chocolate mint

Alcohol

Margarita

Piña colada

Flavors
slide17
Good Quality

Regular $7.00Large $10.00

Arabic Coffee, Apple, Apple Alex, Double Apple, Apricot, Banana, Candy, Cappuccino, Cherry, Carmel, Coconut, Cola, Grape, Jasmine, Lemon, Mint, Mango, Mandarin, Mixed Fruit, Orange, Pistachio, Peach Rose, Salloum, Strawberry, Vanilla, Zaghoul Light, Zaghoul, Licorice

slide18
Excellent QualityRegular $8.00Large $11.00

Double apple, Apricot, Banana, Cantaloupe, Cappuccino, Cherry, Coconut, Mint, Melon, Orange, Peach, Pineapple, Rose, Raspberry, Strawberry, Tutti-Frutti, Vanilla

Cognac, Margarita, Pina Colada, Strawberry

Daiquiri

slide19
Premiume Quality Regular $8.50Large $11.50

Apple, Special Apple, Bahrany Apple, Apple Eskandarani, Banana, Cola, Cappuccino, Fruit Cocktail, Honey Melon, Mango, Orange, Peach, Pipe, Rose, Strawberry

slide20
Superior Quality Regular $9Large $12

Apple, Strawberry, Grape, Rose

slide21
* Make your Hookah Cool with adding ice for $1

* Mix & Match Flavors Add $2

* Flavor Your Hookah Water Add $3

* Add 0.25 Per Each Person** Minimum 1 Order Per Person **

** Bring your own bottle $2 cork charge **

You Must Be 21 to bring your own alcohol bottle

also have
Also Have
  • Fruit Smoothies (e.g. Strawberry, Banana, Mango, Guava)
  • Ice Cream
  • Coffee and Tea
  • Milk Shakes
  • Desserts
  • Games (Mancala, Dominoes)
smoke exposure
Smoke Exposure
  • 30-60 minute sessions
  • Each session ~100 inhalations
  • Each inhalation ~500 mL in volume
  • Total volume
    • Waterpipe session: 50,000 mL
    • Cigarette: 500-600 mL
smoking topography
Smoking Topography

1Shihadeh 2003; Shihadeh 2004

2Breland 2005; Djordjevic 2000

known harm
Known Harm
  • Waterpipe smoke contains ...
    • Carcinogens
    • Carbon monoxide
    • Nicotine
  • Waterpipe smoking associated with ...
    • Cancer
    • Cardiovascular disease
    • Decreased pulmonary function
    • Nicotine dependence
waterpipe cigarettes
Waterpipe > Cigarettes
  • Tar
  • Nicotine
  • CO
  • Heavy Metals

Shihadeh 2003; Shihadeh 2004; Djordjevic 2000; Hoffman, 2000

growing u s prevalence
Growing U.S. Prevalence
  • 200-300 new waterpipe cafés opened in the U.S. between 1999 and 2004
  • Particularly in college towns
  • Convenience sample surveys suggest high current use (past 30 days)
    • 411 first-year college students: 15.3%
    • 744 introductory psychology students: 20%
holes in literature
Holes in Literature
  • Random sample
  • Associations between waterpipe smoking and
    • Demographics
    • Beliefs (e.g., harm, addiction, popularity)
  • Populations outside college
purpose
Purpose
  • Determine the 30-day, annual, and lifetime prevalence of waterpipe smoking in a random sample of college students
  • Determine associations between outcome variables and sociodemographic and predictors
design
Design
  • Cross-sectional survey
  • Random sample of students at the University of Pittsburgh
  • Collect data via web-based version of the American College Health Association’s (ACHA) National College Health Assessment (NCHA)
  • Added items related to waterpipe use
approvals
Approvals
  • University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board
  • University Vice Provost
procedure
Procedure
  • April 2007 during a three-week period
  • Avoided the 30-day period following Spring Break
  • Email invitation sent to 3600 randomly selected Pitt students
  • Incentive: lottery to win cash prizes ranging from $25 to $100
  • Three reminder e-mails sent to students during the three-week period
demographic measures
Demographic Measures
  • Age
  • Gender
  • Race
  • Residence (on-vs. off-campus)
  • Undergraduate vs. graduate
  • Membership in a fraternity or sorority
  • Self-reported academic achievement
theory of reasoned action
Theory of Reasoned Action

Norms

Intent

Behavior

Attitudes

behavior measures
Behavior Measures
  • Have you ever smoked tobacco from a waterpipe (hookah, shisha, narghile), even one or two puffs? (Yes/No)
  • During the past year, have you smoked tobacco from a waterpipe (hookah, shisha, narghile), even one or two puffs? (Yes/No)
  • During the past 30 days, have you smoked tobacco from a waterpipe (hookah, shisha, narghile), even one or two puffs? (Yes/No)
attitudes
Attitudes
  • “Would you say that smoking from a waterpipe (hookah, shisha, narghile) is more harmful or less harmful than smoking regular cigarettes?” (“waterpipe more harmful” / “waterpipe same harm” / “waterpipe less harmful”)
  • “Would you say that smoking from a waterpipe (hookah, shisha, narghile) is more addictive or less addictive than smoking regular cigarettes?” (“waterpipe more addictive” / “waterpipe same addictiveness” / “waterpipe less addictive”)
normative beliefs
Normative Beliefs
  • “Among your peers, how socially acceptable is it to smoke tobacco from a waterpipe (hookah, shisha, narghile)?” (“not acceptable” / “somewhat/moderately acceptable” / “very acceptable”)
  • “What percentage of college students do you think has ever smoked tobacco from a waterpipe (hookah, shisha, narghile)?” (0-100%, collapsed into tertiles
analysis
Analysis
  • Multivariate logistic regression models
    • Dependent variables
      • 30-day waterpipe smoking
      • One year waterpipe smoking
    • Independent variables
      • Perception of harm
      • Perception of addictiveness
      • Acceptability
      • Popularity
    • Covariates
  • Sensitivity analyses with stepwise regression
response rate
Response Rate
  • 61 emails undeliverable
  • Response rate 660/3539 = 18.6%
  • 647/660 (98.0%) had outcome data
  • Compared with non-respondents, respondents were:
    • Younger (20.9 vs. 21.4, p<0.001)
    • Female (65.6% vs. 50.5%, p<0.001)
    • Caucasian (85.4% vs. 80.7%, p=0.004)
other factors associated with 1 year wpts
Other Factors Associated with1-Year WPTS
  • Younger age
  • Off campus
  • Fraternity membership
major findings
Major Findings
  • Lifetime use >40%, similar to cigarette lifetime use
  • Current use 9.5%
  • One year use 30.5%
  • Associated with lack of concern for addictiveness (and harm, less so)
  • Associated with sense of acceptability and popularity
cigarettes vs waterpipe
Cigarettes vs. Waterpipe
  • Many waterpipe smokers had never smoked cigarettes
  • In non-cigarette smokers
    • Problematic
    • Introducing nicotine to previously naïve population
  • In cigarette smokers
    • Substitution?
    • Augmentation?
rate differences
Rate Differences
  • 30-day rate (9.5%) much lower than annual (30.6%) and ever (40.5%) rates
  • Sampling period: we avoided Spring Break, fraternity rush, etc.
limitations
Limitations
  • Response rate: 18.6%
  • Demographic differences between respondents and non-respondents
  • May have inflated our results since younger population more likely to smoke waterpipe
  • Cross-sectional design
conclusion
Conclusion
  • First random sample
  • Ever use common in this sample
  • Further research
    • Longitudinal designs
    • National samples (NCHA)
  • Educational/interventional efforts
    • Major educational gaps
    • Worthwhile to start now
    • Focus on addictiveness, acceptability, popularity
purpose66
Purpose
  • Determine prevalence in statewide sample of high school students
  • Determine associations with waterpipe use in high school
no high school national data
No High School National Data
  • Monitoring the Future
  • Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey
  • Others
arizona 2005
Arizona 2005
  • Youth tobacco survey
  • Added 2 items dealing with waterpipe tobacco smoking
    • Ever
    • Past 30 days
participants
Participants
  • Statewide representative sample
  • Grades 6-12
  • All students enrolled in public and/or charter schools
procedure70
Procedure
  • Schools chose to use active or passive consent forms (89% used passive)
  • Spring semester 2005
  • 45 minute class period
measures
Measures
  • Tobacco
    • 30-day waterpipe smoking
    • Ever waterpipe smoking
    • Other tobacco smoking
  • Sociodemographic data
    • Age
    • Gender
    • Race
    • Type of school (charter vs. regular)
    • Plan to attend college
analysis72
Analysis
  • Sociodemographic trends
  • Multivariate analyses
major findings78
Major Findings
  • History of waterpipe tobacco smoking
    • 6% of all 6th-12th graders
    • 15% of 12th graders
  • More common than 5 other methods of tobacco smoking
  • Associated with age, gender, race, SES
slide79
Age
  • High school: older
  • College: younger
  • Surrogate for alcohol use?
experimentation vs addiction
Experimentation vs. Addiction
  • May lead to increased uptake of various types of nicotine
  • Gateway to cigarette smoking?
surveillance
Surveillance
  • National studies (MTF, YRBS) should track this form of tobacco use
  • Likely to increase
    • Less harsh
    • Flavored
    • Educational gaps
    • Policy issues
anything national
Anything National?
  • ACHA including 2 items in NCHA in 2009
  • Random sample of 7619 college students
conclusion84
Conclusion
  • Waterpipe tobacco smoking represents a major potential threat to public health
  • Threatens to undermine successes from cigarette smoking
  • Surveillance and further research are necessary
ad