Dataset Information

Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use: implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Concomitant use of two forms of tobacco is an increasing public health concern, yet there is little consensus regarding a consistent definition of so-called "dual use." We defined dual use as cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) consumption with either product used daily or nondaily.

Methods

We analyzed a cohort of 36,013 Air Force recruits. We categorized dual tobacco use across 2 dimensions, type of tobacco products (cigarettes, ST, or others), and the frequency of use (daily vs. nondaily). We determined how varying the definition impacted the prevalence estimates and evaluated the prevalence estimate based on our recommended definition of dual use. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk profile of dual users of ST and cigarettes versus mono users of ST and mono users of cigarettes.

Results

Varying definitions of dual use vary prevalence estimates 50-fold (0.5%-25.3%). Including only ST and cigarettes narrows the prevalence estimate to less than 4-fold (2.0%-9.7%). Dual users are more likely to be young Caucasian males, with lower education, and from families with relatively higher incomes. Compared with mono users, dual users of cigarettes and ST have a distinct pattern of risk profiles.

Conclusions

Depending on the definition of dual use, markedly different prevalence and risk profiles are observed. Dual users of ST and cigarettes are a unique group of tobacco users. We propose a common definition of dual use to advance our understanding of this unique group.

SUBMITTER: Klesges RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3129236 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use: implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions.

Klesges Robert C RC Ebbert Jon O JO Morgan Glen D GD Sherrill-Mittleman Deborah D Asfar Taghrid T Talcott Wayne G WG Debon Margaret M

Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 20110324 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>Concomitant use of two forms of tobacco is an increasing public health concern, yet there is little consensus regarding a consistent definition of so-called "dual use." We defined dual use as cigarette and smokeless tobacco (ST) consumption with either product used daily or nondaily.<h4>Methods</h4>We analyzed a cohort of 36,013 Air Force recruits. We categorized dual tobacco use across 2 dimensions, type of tobacco products (cigarettes, ST, or others), and the frequency of ...[more]

PMID: 21436298

Similar Datasets

Project description:Operational research (OR) is the discipline of using models, either quantitative or qualitative, to aid decision-making in complex implementation problems. The methods of OR have been used in healthcare since the 1950s in diverse areas such as emergency medicine and the interface between acute and community care; hospital performance; scheduling and management of patient home visits; scheduling of patient appointments; and many other complex implementation problems of an operational or logistical nature.To date, there has been limited debate about the role that operational research should take within implementation science. I detail three such roles for OR all grounded in upfront system thinking: structuring implementation problems, prospective evaluation of improvement interventions, and strategic reconfiguration. Case studies from mental health, emergency medicine, and stroke care are used to illustrate each role. I then describe the challenges for applied OR within implementation science at the organisational, interventional, and disciplinary levels. Two key challenges include the difficulty faced in achieving a position of mutual understanding between implementation scientists and research users and a stark lack of evaluation of OR interventions. To address these challenges, I propose a research agenda to evaluate applied OR through the lens of implementation science, the liberation of OR from the specialist research and consultancy environment, and co-design of models with service users. Operational research is a mature discipline that has developed a significant volume of methodology to improve health services. OR offers implementation scientists the opportunity to do more upfront system thinking before committing resources or taking risks. OR has three roles within implementation science: structuring an implementation problem, prospective evaluation of implementation problems, and a tool for strategic reconfiguration of health services. Challenges facing OR as implementation science include limited evidence and evaluation of impact, limited service user involvement, a lack of managerial awareness, effective communication between research users and OR modellers, and availability of healthcare data. To progress the science, a focus is needed in three key areas: evaluation of OR interventions, embedding the knowledge of OR in health services, and educating OR modellers about the aims and benefits of service user involvement.

Project description:PurposeNumerous randomized trials have demonstrated noninferiority of single- versus multiple-fraction palliative radiation therapy (RT) in the management of uncomplicated bone metastases; yet there is neither a clear definition of what constitutes a complicated lesion, nor substantial data regarding the prevalence of such complicating features in clinical practice. Thus, we identify a range of evidence-based operational definitions of complicated symptomatic bone metastases and characterize the frequency of such complicating features at a high-volume, tertiary care center.Methods and materialsA retrospective review of patients seen in consultation for symptomatic bone metastases between March 1, 2007, and July 31, 2013, at Johns Hopkins Hospital identified patient and disease characteristics. Descriptive statistics characterized the frequency of the following complicating features: prior RT, prior surgery, neuraxis compromise, pathologic fracture, and soft tissue component at the symptomatic site. A range of definitions for complicated bone metastases was evaluated based on combinations of these features. Uni- and multivariable logistic regressions evaluated the odds of complicated bone metastases as a function of site of primary cancer and of the symptomatic target lesion.ResultsA total of 686 symptomatic bone metastases in 401 patients were evaluated. Percent of target sites complicated by prior RT was 4.4%, prior surgery was 8.9%, pathologic fracture was 20.6%, neuraxis compromise was 52.0% among spine and medial pelvis sites, and soft tissue component was 38.6%. More than 96 possible definitions of complicated bone metastases were identified. The presence of such complicated lesions ranged from 2.3% to 67.3%, depending on the operational definition used. Odds of a complicated lesion were significantly higher for spine sites and select nonbreast histologies.ConclusionsIn this retrospective study, we found complicated symptomatic bone metastases may be present in up to two-thirds of patients. Literature review also demonstrates no clear standard definition of complicated bone metastases, potentially explaining underutilization of single-fraction palliative RT in this setting.

Project description:BackgroundMild cognitive impairment (MCI) is at least as prevalent as dementia after transient ischaemic attack (TIA)/stroke and is increasingly recognised as an important outcome in observational studies and randomised trials. However, there is no consensus on how impairment should be defined, and numerous different criteria exist. Previous studies have shown that different criteria for cognitive impairment impact on prevalence rates in epidemiological studies. However, there are few data on how operational differences within established criteria (e.g. Petersen-MCI) affect measured impairment rates and the performance of short cognitive tests such as the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), particularly in cerebrovascular disease. We therefore evaluated the effect of different operational definitions on measured rates of Petersen-MCI and on reliability of short cognitive tests in patients with TIA and stroke.MethodsConsecutive patients underwent the MMSE, MoCA and neuropsychological battery ?1 year after TIA or stroke in a population-based study. MCI was defined using the Petersen method and subclassified as single or multiple domain, both with (original) and without (modified) subjective memory impairment. Different cut-offs (>1, >1.5 and >2 standard deviations, SD) on a given test relative to published norms were compared together with use of single versus multiple tests to define domain impairment.Results91 non-demented subjects completed neuropsychological testing (mean age ± SD 69.7 ± 11.6 years, 54 male, 49 stroke) at a mean of 3.1 ± 1.9 years after the index event. Rates of cognitive impairment ranged from 14/91 (15%) for MCI-original at >2 SD cut-off to 61/91 (67%) MCI-modified at >1 SD cut-off, and the proportion of MCI that was multiple domain varied, e.g. 24/46 (52%) versus only 5/27 (20%) at 1 versus 2 SD cut-off for MCI-modified. Requirement for subjective memory complaint approximately halved estimates [e.g. 17 (19%) vs. 39 (43%) for MCI at 1.5 SD cut-off, single test definition], whereas use of multiple tests versus a single test to define a cognitive domain had less impact. In general, diagnostic accuracy was higher, and optimal cut-offs lower, on MMSE and MoCA for multiple-domain versus single-domain MCI, but the MoCA appeared superior for detecting MCI-modified, whereas the MMSE performed well in detecting MCI-original.ConclusionEven within established criteria for MCI, differences in operational methodology result in 4-fold variation in MCI estimates. Optimal MMSE and MoCA cut-offs are lower, and reliability more similar, when criteria for MCI are more stringent. Our findings have implications for sample size and adjusted relative risk calculations in randomised trials and for comparisons between studies.

Dataset Information

Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use: implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Impact of differing definitions of dual tobacco use: implications for studying dual use and a call for operational definitions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets