You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Cigarette smoking quit ratios among adults in the USA with cannabis use and cannabis use disorders, 2002–2016
  1. Andrea H Weinberger1,2,
  2. Lauren R Pacek3,
  3. Melanie M Wall4,5,
  4. Misato Gbedemah6,7,
  5. Joun Lee1,8,
  6. Renee D Goodwin6,7,9
  1. 1 Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, Bronx, New York, USA
  2. 2 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA
  3. 3 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  4. 4 Department of Biostatistics, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA
  5. 5 New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, USA
  6. 6 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, The City University of New York, New York, USA
  7. 7 Institute for Implementation Science in Population Health, The City University of New York, New York, USA
  8. 8 Department of Genetics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA
  9. 9 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Renee D Goodwin, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York, New York 10027, USA; rdg66{at}columbia.edu

Abstract

Background The prevalence of cigarette smoking is nearly three times higher among persons who use cannabis and have cannabis use disorders (CUDs), relative to those who do not. The current study examined cigarette quit ratios from 2002 to 2016 among US adults with and without cannabis use and CUDs.

Methods The current study analysed US adults aged 18 years and older from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual cross-sectional study. Quit ratios (ie, proportion of former smokers among ever-smokers) were calculated annually from 2002 to 2016. Time trends in quit ratios by cannabis use/CUDs were tested using logistic regression.

Results In 2016, the quit ratios for people with any cannabis use (23%) and CUDs (15%) were less than half the quit ratios of those without cannabis use and CUDs (51% and 48%, respectively). After controlling for demographics and substance use disorders, the quit ratio did not change from 2002 to 2016 among persons with CUD, though it non-linearly increased among persons with cannabis use, without cannabis use and without CUDs. Quit ratios increased more rapidly among those who reported past-month cannabis use compared with those without past-month cannabis use.

Conclusions Cigarette smoking quit ratios remain dramatically lower among people who use cannabis and have CUDs and quit ratios did not change significantly from 2002 to 2016 among those with CUDs. Public health and clinical attention are needed to increase quit ratios and reduce harmful cigarette smoking consequences for persons with cannabis use and CUDs.

  • co-substance use
  • cessation
  • priority/special populations

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054590

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RDG conceived of the study and data analysis plan and contributed to the interpretation of the data and drafting of the manuscript. AHW contributed to the data analysis plan, interpretation of the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. LRP, MMW and MG conducted the statistical analysis. JL contributed to the literature review and manuscript preparation. All authors have contributed to and approved the final draft of the manuscript. All authors included on the manuscript fulfil the criteria of authorship and there is no one else who fulfils the criteria of authorship that has been excluded as an author.

    • Funding This work was supported by NIH/NIDA (grants R01-DA20892 to Goodwin and K01-DA043413 to Pacek).

    • Disclaimer NIH and NIDA had no role in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; the writing the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.