Next Article in Journal
Psychological Distress, Family Support and Employment Status in First-Year University Students in Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of a Culturally Tailored mHealth Medication Regimen Self-Management Program upon Blood Pressure among Hypertensive Hispanic Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Determining the Enablers and Barriers for the Adoption of Clean Cookstoves in the Middle Belt of Ghana—A Qualitative Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Education Policy for Migrant Children in Thailand and How It Really Happens; A Case Study of Ranong Province, Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 7
10.3390/ijerph16071208
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Cigarette Smoking among Economically Disadvantaged African-American Older Adults in South Los Angeles: Gender Differences

by
Shervin Assari
1,*,
James L. Smith
1,
Marc A. Zimmerman
2 and
Mohsen Bazargan
1,3
1
Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, Charles R Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, CA 90059, USA
2
Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029, USA
3
Departments of Family Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 90059, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(7), 1208; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071208
Submission received: 27 February 2019 / Revised: 23 March 2019 / Accepted: 27 March 2019 / Published: 4 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Minority Health Issues and Health Disparities)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The current study aims to explore gender differences in the risk of cigarette smoking among African-American (AA) older adults who live in economically disadvantaged urban areas of southern Los Angeles. This cross-sectional study enrolled 576 older AA adults (age range between 65 and 96 years) who were residing in Service Planning Area 6 (SPA 6), one of the most economically challenged areas in southern Los Angeles. All participants had cardiometabolic disease (CMD). Data were collected using structured face-to-face interviews. Demographic factors (age and gender), socioeconomic status (educational attainment and financial difficulty), health (number of comorbid medical conditions and depressive symptoms), and health behaviors (current alcohol drinking and current smoking) were measured. Logistic regressions were used to analyze the data without and with interaction terms between gender and current drinking, depressive symptoms, and financial difficulty. AA men reported more smoking than AA women (25.3% versus 9.3%; p < 0.05). Drinking showed a stronger association with smoking for AA men than AA women. Depressive symptoms, however, showed stronger effects on smoking for AA women than AA men. Gender did not interact with financial difficulty with regard to current smoking. As AA older men and women differ in psychological and behavioral determinants of cigarette smoking, gender-specific smoking cessation interventions for AA older adults who live in economically deprived urban areas may be more successful than interventions and programs that do not consider gender differences in determinants of smoking. Gender-tailored smoking cessation programs that address drinking for AA men and depression for AA women may help reduce the burden of smoking in AA older adults in economically disadvantaged urban areas. Given the non-random sampling, there is a need for replication of these findings in future studies.

1. Introduction

Smoking is the single most important preventable behavioral risk factor of early mortality in the United States [1]. Smoking is linked to depression [2] and poor quality of life [3]. Smoking increases risk of several chronic medical conditions (CMCs), particularly cardiometabolic disease (CMD), such as diabetes, hypertension [4], heart disease [5], and stroke [6]. Smoking also increases the risk of other chronic conditions, such as cancer [7]. Smoking is linked to risk factors for cancers of the lungs [8], breasts [9], cervix [10], pancreas [7], stomach [11], and mouth [8]. As a result, smoking is a predictor of premature mortality [1]. For older adults, smoking also increases the risk of infections (e.g., pneumonia) and cognitive decline (e.g., dementia) [12].
Given the close link between CMD and smoking [4,5,6], there is a particular need to study economic, psychological, and behavioral factors that contribute to the risk of continuation of smoking in individuals who have developed comorbid medical conditions (CMCs), particularly CMD. The association between CMD and smoking is two-sided. First, smoking increases the risk of CMCs and CMD, including diabetes mellitus (DM), heart disease, stroke, and other conditions [13,14,15,16,17]. Second, individuals may decide to quit smoking when they are diagnosed with a new CMC or CMD [18,19]. This is in part because doctors advise patients with CMD who smoke to quit. While the former results in a positive association between CMD and smoking [13,14,15,16,17], the latter is reverse [18,19].
Gender is a strongest determinant of substance use and smoking [20,21,22,23,24]. Overall, men have a greater tendency than women to use several substances, such as tobacco and alcohol [20,21,22,23,24]. Some of the gender/sex differences in substance use are due to biology [25,26,27,28,29]. Social processes also have a major role in explaining some of the differences in substance use between men and women [30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Due to traditional gender roles, society has different behavioral expectations from women and men. As a result, women may view substance use as less acceptable for them than men [30,31,32,33,34,35,36].
In addition, depression and depressive symptoms are associated with substance use [37]. Researchers have reported a very close link between depression and substance use disorder, and many individuals with depression use substances. Called a “dual diagnosis” [38], a large proportion of individuals with depression also use substances such as cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol [39]. In fact, some people may turn to substance use as a way of coping with their psychological pain, mood problems, depression, anxiety, and intense emotions.
Finally, smoking and alcohol use tend to co-occur. One reason behind this pattern is that some substances operate as a gateway to the other ones, and some social networks and attitudes and social situations promote various types of substance uses across types. The combination of alcohol use and smoking has a considerable impact on the incidence and outcomes of CMCs and CMD [40].
Trajectories, patterns, and risk factors of smoking seems to differ among African-Americans (AA) compared to other racial and ethnic groups [41,42,43]. Smoking initiation, for example, differs between AAs and whites [43]. Minority stress theory posits that increased stress among minorities result in unhealthy behavioral coping like smoking. Predatory and targeted advertisement of menthol cigarettes, the high density of tobacco outlets, and less access to cessation programs in economically deprived urban areas expose AA communities to additional vulnerability to smoking and the use of other substances [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. As a result of a phenomenon called the telescoping effect, use of tobacco and other substances are more likely to result in undesired trajectories of several negative health outcomes. As a result, AA smokers experience worse consequences, a pattern that is also shown for other substances, including alcohol [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Due to such a trajectory, despite a lower prevalence of substance use, AAs become vulnerable to smoking and the use of other substances [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64].
Unfortunately, limited epidemiological knowledge exists on gender differences in the pattern and correlates of smoking among AA older adults with CMD in economically disadvantaged urban settings. Such urban settings are limited in resources like tobacco cessation programs [41,65]. Understanding more nuances on how male and female AA older adults differ in risk and protective factors that shape their smoking is very relevant for designing and implementing gender-specific smoking cessation programs in urban settings [65]. This information becomes even more relevant to AA older adults with CMD who continue to smoke. Lack of such information limits our ability to design and implement tailored interventions with the highest levels of efficacy.

Aims

Built on a data set that had collected data about AAs in one of the poorest areas of South Los Angeles [66,67,68,69], we explore the direct and indirect role of gender on smoking among economically disadvantaged AA older adults with CMD. Specifically, we tested the following hypotheses: (1) gender will be associated with smoking, with AA men being more likely to smoke cigarettes compared to AA women; (2) gender will moderate the co-occurrence of drinking and smoking, with the association between drinking and smoking being stronger for AA men than AA women; (3) gender will modify the association between depressive symptoms and smoking, so that depressive symptoms will show a larger effect on the prevalence of smoking of AA women than AA men; and (4) gender will modify the relevance of financial difficulty for smoking for AAs, with financial difficulty having a smaller effect on the prevalence of smoking for AA women than AA men. We focused on AAs with CMD, as most AA older adults above age 65 have at least one chronic disease, given the racial disparities in prevalence of CMCs in the United States [70]. We were also interested in understanding which AA older adults continue to smoke cigarettes despite having CMD, given the recent literature on racial variation in the effects of being diagnosed with a CMC on smoking behaviors [71].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Setting

The study was a cross-sectional survey of AA older adults performed in South Los Angeles between 2015 and 2018 [66,67,68,69]. Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted between 2015 and 2018 to collect data on demographic factors (age and gender), socioeconomic status (SES; educational attainment and financial difficulty), health status (number of chronic conditions and depressive symptoms), and health behaviors (current alcohol drinking and current smoking).

2.2. Institutional Review Board (IRB)

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (CDU; IRB no. 14-12-2450-05). All participants signed a written informed consent before being enrolled in the study. Participants received financial incentive. To ensure that participants understood the consent process, participants were asked the following questions: (1) what is your understanding of the purpose for this study? (2) What is going to happen in this study? (3) What do you have to do in this study? (4) What are some risk/benefits of participating in this study? Participants enrolled to the study only if they could provide reasonable answer to the above questions.

2.3. Participants

The study used a non-random sampling to recruit AA older adults. Participants were a convenience sample of AA older adults residing in Service Planning Area 6 (SPA 6) in South Los Angeles. Participants were eligible if they were AA or Black, were 55 years or older, and could complete an interview in English. Participants were excluded if they were institutionalized, were concurrently enrolled to other clinical trials, or had severe cognitive impairement. As the primary study was conducted on medication challenges, it was important to limit the sample to the individuals who were mentally capable and were responsible for taking their medications. This was because our outcome was adherence, and we needed individuals who were not dependent on other individuals to take medications. Concurrent enrollment in other clinical trials was considered an exclusion criterion, because the other trials’ protocol, curriculum, and interventions could result in arbitrary changes in various participants’ physical and mental health outcomes. Only seven individuals were excluded because of concurrent participation in another clinical trial.
This sampling resulted in 740 AAs aged 55 years and older. This sample was selected from areas in South Los Angeles, such as the Watts area. The current analysis was limited to AA participants who were 65 years or older (n = 576) and had CMD, including hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and lipid disorder/hypercholesterolemia.
Participants were recruited from 11 senior housing apartment units, 16 predominantly AA churches, and low-income public housing projects located in SPA 6 in Los Angeles County. Church leaders and housing apartment managers facilitated and encouraged participation of the individuals in their communities. We recruited community-dwelling, underserved, older AAs from predominantly AA churches located in SPA 6 of Los Angeles (LA) County. LA County is the most populous county in the nation. We selected SPA 6 because the vast majority of older adults in it are AA (49%). Overall, from 10.3 million individuals who reside in LA County, more than 1.3 million are older adults (i.e., 65 years and older) [35]. Due to its large size (4300 square miles), LA County is divided into eight Service Planning Areas (SPAs) [36]. These distinct regions allow the LA Department of Public Health to better conduct surveillance, as well as provide public health and clinical services that are targeted to the specific health needs of the residents in each SPA. Approximately 28% of SPA 6 households are below the federal poverty level, and 36% of adults are uninsured. In SPA 6, 58% of adults have income levels less than 200% of the federal poverty line (FPL), compared to 41% in LA County overall. From 2013 to 2015, the percentage of homeless AAs in SPA 6 has nearly doubled from 39% to 70% [72].

2.4. Measures

2.4.1. Demographic Characteristics

Age and gender were the demographic variables in this study. Age was treated as an interval variable. Gender was a dichotomous variable. Gender was the effect modifier (male 1, female 0).

2.4.2. Educational Attainment

Education attainment was operationalized as an interval level variable (years of schooling). Higher scores indicated more years of education.

2.4.3. Financial Difficulty

Self-reported (perceived) financial difficulty was measured using three items that asked about the frequency with which the participant did not have enough money to afford (1) adequate food, (2) clothing, and (3) difficulty paying bills. Each item was on a response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). A total “financial difficulty” score was calculated, ranging from 3 to 15, with a high score reflecting more financial difficulty. The Cronbach alpha of the measure in this study was 0.92. These items were consistent with Pearlin’s list of main chronic financial difficulties experienced by low SES individuals [73].

2.4.4. Health Insurance

Participants were asked if they had health insurance, which was coded as a dichotomous variable (0 = no; 1 = yes).

2.4.5. Comorbid Medical Conditions (CMC)

Participants were asked about 11 comorbid conditions. Individuals were asked if a physician had ever told them that they have any of these conditions: hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, lipid disorder/hypercholesterolemia, thyroid disorder, cancer, asthma, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and gastrointestinal disease. Self-reported data is a valid measure to collect data on CMC [74,75]; however, some bias in estimates of this approach to measuring multi-morbidity is expected.

2.4.6. Depressive Symptoms

This study used the 15-item Short Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) to evaluate depression [76]. Responses were on a “yes” or “no” scale. A summary score was calculated, with a potential range between 0 to 15. A higher score indicated more depressive symptoms. The Short GDS has excellent reliability and validity. This measure has been extensively used to measure depression among older adults in both clinical and community settings [77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86].

2.4.7. Current Alcohol Drinking

Participants were asked “Do you drink alcohol?” Drinking was operationalized as a dichotomous variable (0 = no; 1 = yes).

2.4.8. Current Cigarette Smoking

Participants were asked about their smoking habits. Participants were asked if they smoke cigarettes using the following question: “How would you describe your cigarette smoking habits?” Smoking status was operationalized as a dichotomous variable (0 = not current smoker; 1 = current smoker).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

We used SPSS 23.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York, NY, USA) to analyze the data. For univariate analysis, we reported frequency (n), relative frequency (%), means, and standard deviations (SDs). For bivariate analysis, we used the Pearson correlation test (zero order correlation) to generate a matrix of bivariate correlations between all study variables. We also used the independent samples t-test and Pearson’s chi-squared test to compare AA men and AA women for study variables. We applied logistic regression models with current smoking as the dependent variable, and gender, age, SES, CMCs, depressive symptoms, and current alcohol drinking as independent variables. At the first step, we performed diagnostics to check the assumptions needed for logistic regression models. We ruled out any collinearity between our independent variables. Model 1 tested the main effect of gender. Model 2 tested the gender differences in the effect of drinking on smoking. This model included an interaction between gender (female = 0; male = 1) and drinking (no = 0; yes = 1). Model 3 tested differential effects of depressive symptoms on smoking of AA men and women. This model included an interaction between males and depressive symptoms. The next model tested the gender differences in the effects of financial difficulty on smoking. This model included interaction terms between gender and education and financial strain. Finally, we reported two logistic regressions specific to genders. We reanalyzed our data using ever smoking and frequency of drinking for sensitivity analysis. As the results did not change, detailed results are not shown but are available upon request. We reported the odds ratio (OR), standard error (SE), 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), and p-values.

2.6. Missing Data

Missing data were very limited in the main study, as well as in our current analysis. We have explained this in our methods (missing data). Our outcomes did not have any missing data. From our predictors, most variables did not have missing data. CMC data were missing for three participants, depressive symptoms were missing for one participant, and financial difficulty was missing for two participants.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 describes the study variables in the sample. All participants were older adults (65 years or older) with at least one CMD. From all our participants, 40.1% (n = 231) had DM, 96.5% (n = 556) had hypertension (HTN), 15.8% (n = 91) had stroke, and 33.9% (n = 195) had heart disease. From all our participants, 99% (n = 570) had some type of health insurance. Participants were mostly females (65.6%). Our sample had an average age of 74 years old. AA women were slightly older than AA men in our sample. From our participants, 29.5% reported current alcohol drinking, and 14.8% reported current cigarette smoking.

3.2. Bivariate Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of bivariate correlations between study variables. This table reports correlation coefficients (r) based on Pearson correlation. Current smoking and current drinking statuses were positively correlated (r = 0.27, p < 0.05), suggesting that participants who report current smoking where more likely to drink alcohol as well. This correlation was larger for AA men (r = 0.43, p < 0.05) than for AA women (r = 0.12, p < 0.05). Depressive symptoms and smoking were positively correlated in the pooled sample (r = 0.17, p < 0.05), suggesting that participants who report higher levels of depressive symptoms also report smoking. This correlation was, however, larger for AA women (r = 0.26, p < 0.05) than AA men (r = 0.06, p > 0.05).

3.3. Multivariable Analysis

Table 3 shows the results of several multiple logistic regression models with smoking as the outcome. Model 1 tested the main effect of gender, without any interaction terms in the model. Model 2 tested the gender differences in the effect of drinking on current smoking. Model 3 tested differential effect of depressive symptoms on the current smoking of AA men and women. Model 4 tested the gender differences in the roles of two SES indicators on the odds of current smoking.
Model 1 showed that male gender is associated with greater odds of current smoking (OR = 2.85, 95% CI = 1.67–4.86). In this model, older age was associated with lower odds of current smoking (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.82–0.92). In addition, depressive symptoms (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.03–1.26) and drinking alcohol (OR = 3.61, OR = 2.13–6.13) were associated with greater odds of current smoking in the pooled sample (Table 3, Model 1).
Table 3 also reports the results of Model 2, which includes the gender by drinking interaction term. This model shows a positive interaction between gender (men) and drinking, suggesting that the effect of drinking alcohol on current smoking is larger for men than women.
This table also shows the results of Model 3, which includes the gender and depressive symptoms interaction term. This model shows a negative interaction between gender (men) and depressive symptoms, suggesting that the effect of depressive symptoms on current smoking is smaller for men than women.
Table 3 also shows the results of Model 4, which includes the gender and financial distress interaction term. This model shows no interaction between gender and financial distress, suggesting no gender difference in the effects of financial difficulty on current smoking.
Table 4 shows the results of Models 5 and 6, which tested logistic regressions specific to genders. The results indicate that depressive symptoms were a predictor of the odds of smoking for women, but not men. The association between drinking and current smoking, however, was not statistically significant at the 0.05 level for women. Yet this association (i.e., drinking and current smoking) was statistically significant for men (Table 4).
Figure 1a shows a larger OR, reflecting the effects of depressive symptoms on current smoking for women than men. As this figure shows, the 95% CI does not cross 1 for women; however, 1 is included in the 95% CI for men. Figure 1b shows a larger OR, reflecting the effects of current drinking status on current smoking for men than women. As this figure shows, the 95% CI does not cross 1 for men; however, 1 is included in the 95%CI for women.

4. Discussion

In a sample of AA older adults in economically deprived urban areas of South Los Angeles, the current study showed three main findings. First, AA older men are more likely than AA older women to smoke cigarettes. Second, alcohol may have a larger association with smoking for AA older men than AA older women. Third, depressive symptoms are more closely associated with the smoking of AA older women than AA older men. As the sample of this study was not random, the results should be considered suggestive.
Our results supported our hypothesis that among older AA adults who live in economically challenged urban areas that are limited in resources, men are more likely to be current smokers than women. This was in line with what we know about role of gender on substance use and externalizing behaviors. Men learn in society that they can express themselves with externalizing behaviors, while women sometimes feel obligated to comply with traditional norms and societal expectations. As a result, men are more likely to show risky behaviors, such as smoking and drinking [87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95]. Another reason for this robust gender difference is that men systemically underestimate, while women over-estimate risk across domains [88,96,97,98,99,100,101].
The results also support our hypothesis that depressive symptoms play a more salient role on the smoking of elderly AA women than men. This finding suggests that smoking may be used differently as a coping mechanism for AA older men and women with CMD. To be more specific, for AA older women, smoking may be a way to deal with depression; however, for AA older men, depression may not similarly be linked to smoking. AA women may be more likely than AA men to use smoking as a coping mechanism to reduce their psychological distress and depression.
Older age was associated with less smoking. Age is a strong and consistent determinant of substance use [32,102]. Overall, younger people have a higher tendency to smoke cigarette and drink alcohol [32,102]. Biological mechanisms may explain the lower tendency of older adults to use substances [25,26,27,28,29]. Older adults have lower metabolism (biological tolerance) for tobacco and alcohol [25], which may result in lower likelihood of use. Cohort differences may also explain some of the differences in smoking between age groups. Popularity of smoking in some eras and the availability of information about risks associated with various substances differ across cohorts and age groups [103,104,105,106].
Another finding of this study was that smoking in AA older adults with CMD was not influenced by subjective or objective SES indicators. In addition, financial distress did not affect the smoking of AA older adults with CMD. This is in contrast to researchers who have found that subjective indicators of SES (e.g., financial difficulty) are particularly consequential for both AAs [107,108,109] and older adults [110,111,112]. Research has indicated that financial difficulty comes with a higher risk of health consequences and health needs [113], such as smoking [114]. Growing evidence, however, suggests that the health implications of SES indicators are smaller for AAs than whites [41,115,116,117,118,119,120]. As suggested by the Minorities Diminished Returns (MDR) theory [121], SES indicators have a smaller effect on AAs than on whites. Although most of this research is focused on a comparison of AAs and whites [41,115,116,117,118,119,120], some research shows that even within AAs, AA men may gain less health from SES than AA women [122]. AA men with high educational attainment and income report poor mental health [122], a pattern which is not shown for AA women. For example, high educational attainment reduces the symptoms of depression and psychological distress for AA women, but not AA men [76]. Thus, AA men may be at a relative disadvantage compared to AA women regarding the mental health gain from their SES resources.

4.1. Limitations

The current study had a few limitations. First, it used a non-random sample. As a result, findings are not generalizable to all African-American older adults in the United States. Second, due to the cross-sectional design, inference of causal links between variables is not possible. There is a need for longitudinal studies that explore gender differences in using smoking as a coping strategy over time. The third limitation was the measurement of smoking, drinking, and CMCs. Our indicators to measure smoking and drinking were single items, which reduces the validity of our measures, and limited the variation of our outcome variables. Future research may use more comprehensive measures capable of increasing the validity of our measures and capturing greater variance of the outcome. Our measurement of smoking was too simplistic. We conceptualized smoking as a dichotomous variable based on the question, “How would you describe your cigarette smoking habits?” This classification may be partially biased, as it is not clear if all responses of “still smoking” have the same meaning. Some people may report “still smoking” if they smoked today, and some may report current smoking if they smoked last week. There is also a need for similar studies with individuals from other racial and ethnic groups. Such research can inform us how racial and ethnic populations differ in smoking, and determinants of such behaviors. Such research may provide additional insight into racial and ethnic heath disparities. We did not have data on the cognitive impairment of our participants. Future research may use standardized measures like the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE). Finally, income may be a very important SES indicator. Unfortunately, we did not have access to the income of the participants. Despite these significant limitations, the study still adds to our knowledge of a section of the population that is not well studied. Another possible source of bias is relying on self-report data for CMCs. Self-reported data about CMCs can be validated using administrative data. The findings, however, still provide evidence that smoking may have different predictors in AA men and AA women. We found support for our hypothesized gender differences. Both the hypotheses and the results of this study are important from a public health perspective. However, the non-random sample may be considered a major limitation for this study. The potential policy implication of this study is therefore compromised by the restricted study sample. This is mainly because the external validity of this study is low. In addition, our measurement of smoking was too simplistic.

4.2. Implications

The finding that the co-occurrence of the health problems of drinking, depressive symptoms, and smoking tend to differ in older AA men and women in economically disadvantaged urban areas has implications for program planning. One implication is the need for the provision and expansion of tobacco cessation and mental health care services in poor urban areas. We argue that the integration of depression care and smoking may be more relevant for AA older women than men, while integration of alcohol and tobacco programs may particularly benefit AA older men. Thus, the content of behavioral interventions could differ for male and female AA older adults.

5. Conclusions

Gender impacts the smoking prevalence of AA older adults with CMD who reside in economically deprived urban areas in multiple ways. First, gender has a primary effect on smoking, with men having a higher tendency to smoke than women. However, the effect of gender is not limited to a higher risk of smoking in men than women. Smoking seems to accompany drinking more commonly in men than women, while depression seems to have a larger effect on smoking of women than men. That means that smoking and drinking tend to co-occur in AA older men, while depression and smoking tend to co-occur in AA older women, when both groups live in economically challenged urban areas. Integration of tobacco and alcohol prevention programs may generate more benefits for AA older men with CMD than AA older women with CMD. In addition, smoking cessation programs that screen for depression may be a useful approach for older AA women.

Author Contributions

S.A.: conceptualization of this paper, data analysis, contribution to the manuscript, first draft, revision of the paper, and approval of the final draft. J.L.S.: data collection and approval of the final draft. M.A.Z.: conceptualization of this paper, contribution to the manuscript, edits, revision of the paper, and approval of the final draft. M.B.: conceptualization of the study, study design, funding acquisition, data analysis, overseeing the study, revision of the paper, and approval of the final draft.

Funding

This study was supported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Grant 1H0CMS331621 to Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (PI: Mohsen Bazargan). Additionally, Bazargan is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award #54MD008149 and #R25 MD007610 (principal investigator (PI): Mohsen Bazargan), 2U54MD007598 (PI: J. Vadgama), and U54 TR001627 (PIs: S. Dubinett, and R. Jenders). Shervin Assari is partly supported by the CMC grant 1H0CMS331621 (PI: M. Bazargan), the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) grant U54 MD007598 (PI = Mohsen Bazargan), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) grant DA035811-05 (PI = Marc A. Zimmerman), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) grant D084526-03, and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) grant CA201415-02 (Co-PI = R. Mistry).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Novick, L.F. Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disability in the United States. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2000, 6, vi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fluharty, M.; Taylor, A.E.; Grabski, M.; Munafo, M.R. The Association of Cigarette Smoking With Depression and Anxiety: A Systematic Review. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2017, 19, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Quezada, S.M.; Langenberg, P.; Cross, R.K. Cigarette smoking adversely affects disease activity and disease-specific quality of life in patients with Crohn’s disease at a tertiary referral center. Clin. Exp. Gastroenterol. 2016, 9, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Pandey, M.R. Tobacco smoking and hypertension. J. Indian Med. Assoc. 1999, 97, 367–369. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Fagard, R.H. Smoking amplifies cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and diabetes. Diabetes Care 2009, 32 (Suppl. 2), S429–S431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pan, A.; Wang, Y.; Talaei, M.; Hu, F.B. Relation of Smoking With Total Mortality and Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Circulation 2015, 132, 1795–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lugo, A.; Peveri, G.; Bosetti, C.; Bagnardi, V.; Crippa, A.; Orsini, N.; Rota, M.; Gallus, S. Strong excess risk of pancreatic cancer for low frequency and duration of cigarette smoking: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Cancer 2018, 104, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chang, C.M.; Corey, C.G.; Rostron, B.L.; Apelberg, B.J. Systematic review of cigar smoking and all cause and smoking related mortality. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chen, C.; Huang, Y.B.; Liu, X.O.; Gao, Y.; Dai, H.J.; Song, F.J.; Li, W.Q.; Wang, J.; Yan, Y.; Wang, P.S.; et al. Active and passive smoking with breast cancer risk for Chinese females: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chin. J. Cancer 2014, 33, 306–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sugawara, Y.; Tsuji, I.; Mizoue, T.; Inoue, M.; Sawada, N.; Matsuo, K.; Ito, H.; Naito, M.; Nagata, C.; Kitamura, Y.; et al. Cigarette smoking and cervical cancer risk: An evaluation based on a systematic review and meta-analysis among Japanese women. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 49, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jedrychowski, W.; Boeing, H.; Wahrendorf, J.; Popiela, T.; Tobiasz-Adamczyk, B.; Kulig, J. Vodka consumption, tobacco smoking and risk of gastric cancer in Poland. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1993, 22, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hessler, J.B.; Bronner, M.; Etgen, T.; Gotzler, O.; Forstl, H.; Poppert, H.; Sander, D.; Bickel, H. Smoking increases the risk of delirium for older inpatients: A prospective population-based study. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2015, 37, 360–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Adjemian, M.K.; Volpe, R.J.; Adjemian, J. Relationships between Diet, Alcohol Preference, and Heart Disease and Type 2 Diabetes among Americans. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0124351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ajani, U.A.; Hennekens, C.H.; Spelsberg, A.; Manson, J.E. Alcohol consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus among US male physicians. Arch. Intern. Med. 2000, 160, 1025–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Babor, T.; Rehm, J.; Jernigan, D.; Vaeth, P.; Monteiro, M.; Lehman, H. Alcohol, diabetes, and public health in the Americas. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública 2012, 32, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Beulens, J.W.; van der Schouw, Y.T.; Bergmann, M.M.; Rohrmann, S.; Schulze, M.B.; Buijsse, B.; Grobbee, D.E.; Arriola, L.; Cauchi, S.; Tormo, M.J.; et al. Alcohol consumption and risk of type 2 diabetes in European men and women: Influence of beverage type and body size The EPIC-InterAct study. J. Intern. Med. 2012, 272, 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Heianza, Y.; Arase, Y.; Saito, K.; Tsuji, H.; Fujihara, K.; Hsieh, S.D.; Kodama, S.; Shimano, H.; Yamada, N.; Hara, S.; et al. Role of alcohol drinking pattern in type 2 diabetes in Japanese men: The Toranomon Hospital Health Management Center Study 11 (TOPICS 11). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 97, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Keenan, P.S. Smoking and weight change after new health diagnoses in older adults. Arch. Intern. Med. 2009, 169, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Newsom, J.T.; Huguet, N.; McCarthy, M.J.; Ramage-Morin, P.; Kaplan, M.S.; Bernier, J.; McFarland, B.H.; Oderkirk, J. Health behavior change following chronic illness in middle and later life. J. Gerontol. B Psychol. Sci. Soc. Sci. 2012, 67, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alvanzo, A.A.; Storr, C.L.; La Flair, L.; Green, K.M.; Wagner, F.A.; Crum, R.M. Race/ethnicity and sex differences in progression from drinking initiation to the development of alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011, 118, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Billimek, J.; Malik, S.; Sorkin, D.H.; Schmalbach, P.; Ngo-Metzger, Q.; Greenfield, S.; Kaplan, S.H. Understanding disparities in lipid management among patients with type 2 diabetes: Gender differences in medication nonadherence after treatment intensification. Womens Health Issues 2015, 25, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Keyes, K.M.; Martins, S.S.; Blanco, C.; Hasin, D.S. Telescoping and gender differences in alcohol dependence: New evidence from two national surveys. Am. J. Psychiatry 2010, 167, 969–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Khan, S.S.; Secades-Villa, R.; Okuda, M.; Wang, S.; Perez-Fuentes, G.; Kerridge, B.T.; Blanco, C. Gender differences in cannabis use disorders: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey of Alcohol and Related Conditions. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013, 130, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Mann, K.; Ackermann, K.; Croissant, B.; Mundle, G.; Nakovics, H.; Diehl, A. Neuroimaging of gender differences in alcohol dependence: Are women more vulnerable? Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2005, 29, 896–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Collins, A.C.; Yeager, T.N.; Lebsack, M.E.; Panter, S.S. Variations in alcohol metabolism: Influence of sex and age. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1975, 3, 973–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mezey, E. Influence of sex hormones on alcohol metabolism. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2000, 24, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Miyazawa, M.; Shindo, M.; Shimada, T. Sex differences in the metabolism of (+)- and (−)-limonene enantiomers to carveol and perillyl alcohol derivatives by cytochrome p450 enzymes in rat liver microsomes. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2002, 15, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Oshima, S.; Haseba, T.; Masuda, C.; Kakimi, E.; Kitagawa, Y.; Ohno, Y. [Dose effect of alcohol on sex differences in blood alcohol metabolism—Cases where healthy subjects with ALDH2*1/1 genotype drunk beer with meal]. Nihon Arukoru Yakubutsu Igakkai Zasshi 2013, 48, 187–197. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rachamin, G.; MacDonald, J.A.; Wahid, S.; Clapp, J.J.; Khanna, J.M.; Israel, Y. Modulation of alcohol dehydrogenase and ethanol metabolism by sex hormones in the spontaneously hypertensive rat. Effect of chronic ethanol administration. Biochem. J. 1980, 186, 483–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Armstrong, E.M. Commentary on Kuntsche et al. (2011): Mothers and bottles—The role of gender norms in shaping drinking. Addiction 2011, 106, 1933–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bacharach, S.B.; Bamberger, P.A.; McKinney, V.M. Harassing under the influence: The prevalence of male heavy drinking, the embeddedness of permissive workplace drinking norms, and the gender harassment of female coworkers. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2007, 12, 232–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Davies, E.L.; Martin, J.; Foxcroft, D.R. Age differences in alcohol prototype perceptions and willingness to drink in U.K. adolescents. Psychol. Health Med. 2016, 21, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Goode, T.D.; Jack, L., Jr. The alliance to reduce disparities in diabetes: Infusing policy and system change with local experience. Health Promot. Pract. 2014, 15, 6S–10S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grossbard, J.R.; Mastroleo, N.R.; Geisner, I.M.; Atkins, D.; Ray, A.E.; Kilmer, J.R.; Mallett, K.; Larimer, M.E.; Turrisi, R. Drinking norms, readiness to change, and gender as moderators of a combined alcohol intervention for first-year college students. Addict. Behav. 2016, 52, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lewis, M.A.; Neighbors, C. Gender-specific misperceptions of college student drinking norms. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2004, 18, 334–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Deutsch, A.R.; Steinley, D.; Slutske, W.S. The role of gender and friends’ gender on peer socialization of adolescent drinking: A prospective multilevel social network analysis. J. Youth Adolesc. 2014, 43, 1421–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bonin, M.F.; McCreary, D.R.; Sadava, S.W. Problem drinking behavior in two community-based samples of adults: Influence of gender, coping, loneliness, and depression. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2000, 14, 151–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Manley, D. Dual diagnosis: Co-existence of drug, alcohol and mental health problems. Br. J. Nurs. 2005, 14, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Boyd, M.R.; Phillips, K.; Dorsey, C.J. Alcohol and other drug disorders, comorbidity, and violence: Comparison of rural African American and Caucasian women. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2003, 17, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Bongaerts, B.W.; de Goeij, A.F.; van den Brandt, P.A.; Weijenberg, M.P. Alcohol and the risk of colon and rectal cancer with mutations in the K-ras gene. Alcohol 2006, 38, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chen, P.; Jacobson, K.C. Developmental trajectories of substance use from early adolescence to young adulthood: Gender and racial/ethnic differences. J. Adolesc. Health 2012, 50, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Anderson, C.; Burns, D.M. Patterns of adolescent smoking initiation rates by ethnicity and sex. Tob. Control 2000, 9 (Suppl. 2), II4–II8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Assari, S. Separate and Combined Effects of Anxiety, Depression and Problem Drinking on Subjective Health among Black, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Men. Int. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 5, 269–279. [Google Scholar]
  45. Avalos, L.A.; Mulia, N. Formal and informal substance use treatment utilization and alcohol abstinence over seven years: Is the relationship different for blacks and whites? Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012, 121, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Caetano, R. Alcohol-related health disparities and treatment-related epidemiological findings among whites, blacks, and Hispanics in the United States. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2003, 27, 1337–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Odvina, C.V.; Safi, I.; Wojtowicz, C.H.; Barengolts, E.I.; Lathon, P.; Skapars, A.; Desai, P.N.; Kukreja, S.C. Effect of heavy alcohol intake in the absence of liver disease on bone mass in black and white men. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 1995, 80, 2499–2503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ramisetty-Mikler, S.; Caetano, R.; McGrath, C. Sexual aggression among White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the U.S.: Alcohol use, physical assault and psychological aggression as its correlates. Am. J. Drug Alcohol Abuse 2007, 33, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Robyak, J.E.; Byers, P.H.; Prange, M.E. Patterns of alcohol abuse among black and white alcoholics. Int. J. Addict. 1989, 24, 715–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Rothman, E.F.; Wise, L.A.; Bernstein, E.; Bernstein, J. The timing of alcohol use and sexual initiation among a sample of Black, Hispanic, and White adolescents. J. Ethn. Subst. Abuse 2009, 8, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Watson, D.W.; Sobell, M.B. Social influences on alcohol consumption by black and white males. Addict. Behav. 1982, 7, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Caetano, R.; Baruah, J.; Ramisetty-Mikler, S.; Ebama, M.S. Sociodemographic predictors of pattern and volume of alcohol consumption across Hispanics, Blacks, and Whites: 10-year trend (1992–2002). Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2010, 34, 1782–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Caetano, R.; Schafer, J. DSM-IV alcohol dependence and drug abuse/dependence in a treatment sample of whites, blacks and Mexican Americans. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1996, 43, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Caetano, R.; Schafer, J. DSM-IV alcohol dependence in a treatment sample of white, black, and Mexican-American men. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 1996, 20, 384–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Caetano, R.; Schafer, J.; Cunradi, C.B. Alcohol-related intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States. Alcohol Res. Health 2001, 25, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  56. Dawkins, R.L.; Dawkins, M.P. Alcohol use and delinquency among black, white and hispanic adolescent offenders. Adolescence 1983, 18, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  57. Jones-Webb, R.; Snowden, L.; Herd, D.; Short, B.; Hannan, P. Alcohol-related problems among black, Hispanic and white men: The contribution of neighborhood poverty. J. Stud. Alcohol 1997, 58, 539–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kerr, W.C.; Patterson, D.; Greenfield, T.K. Differences in the measured alcohol content of drinks between black, white and Hispanic men and women in a US national sample. Addiction 2009, 104, 1503–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Klatsky, A.L.; Friedman, G.D.; Siegelaub, A.B.; Gerard, M.J. Alcohol consumption among white, black, or oriental men and women: Kaiser-Permanente multiphasic health examination data. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1977, 105, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lillie-Blanton, M.; MacKenzie, E.; Anthony, J.C. Black-white differences in alcohol use by women: Baltimore survey findings. Public Health Rep. 1991, 106, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  61. McCarthy, D.M.; Miller, T.L.; Smith, G.T.; Smith, J.A. Disinhibition and expectancy in risk for alcohol use: Comparing black and white college samples. J. Stud. Alcohol 2001, 62, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mulia, N.; Ye, Y.; Greenfield, T.K.; Zemore, S.E. Disparities in alcohol-related problems among white, black, and Hispanic Americans. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2009, 33, 654–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Mulia, N.; Ye, Y.; Zemore, S.E.; Greenfield, T.K. Social disadvantage, stress, and alcohol use among black, Hispanic, and white Americans: Findings from the 2005 U.S. National Alcohol Survey. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2008, 69, 824–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Nyaronga, D.; Greenfield, T.K.; McDaniel, P.A. Drinking context and drinking problems among black, white, and Hispanic men and women in the 1984, 1995, and 2005 U.S. National Alcohol Surveys. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 2009, 70, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Berman, B.A.; Jones, L.; Jones, F.; Jones, A.; Pacheco, B.A.; McCarthy, W.J. How can we help African American substance users stop smoking? client and agency perspectives. J. Ethn. Subst. Abuse 2017, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Bazargan, M.; Smith, J.; Movassaghi, M.; Martins, D.; Yazdanshenas, H.; Salehe Mortazavi, S.; Orum, G. Polypharmacy among Underserved Older African American Adults. J. Aging Res. 2017, 2017, 6026358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Bazargan, M.; Smith, J.; Yazdanshenas, H.; Movassaghi, M.; Martins, D.; Orum, G. Non-adherence to medication regimens among older African-American adults. BMC Geriatr. 2017, 17, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Bazargan, M.; Smith, J.L.; King, E.O. Potentially inappropriate medication use among hypertensive older African-American adults. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Bazargan, M.; Yazdanshenas, H.; Gordon, D.; Orum, G. Pain in Community-Dwelling Elderly African Americans. J. Aging Health 2016, 28, 403–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Assari, S. Number of Chronic Medical Conditions Fully Mediates the Effects of Race on Mortality; 25-Year Follow-Up of a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities 2017, 4, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Quiñones, A.R.; Nagel, C.L.; Newsom, J.T.; Huguet, N.; Sheridan, P.; Thielke, S.M. Racial and ethnic differences in smoking changes after chronic disease diagnosis among middle-aged and older adults in the United States. BMC Geriatr. 2017, 17, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Laaksonen, E.; Lallukka, T.; Lahelma, E.; Ferrie, J.E.; Rahkonen, O.; Head, J.; Marmot, M.G.; Martikainen, P. Economic difficulties and physical functioning in Finnish and British employees: Contribution of social and behavioural factors. Eur. J. Public Health 2011, 21, 456–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Heliovaara, M.; Aromaa, A.; Klaukka, T.; Knekt, P.; Joukamaa, M.; Impivaara, O. Reliability and validity of interview data on chronic diseases. The Mini-Finland Health Survey. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1993, 46, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Martin, L.M.; Leff, M.; Calonge, N.; Garrett, C.; Nelson, D.E. Validation of self-reported chronic conditions and health services in a managed care population. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2000, 18, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bae, J.N.; Cho, M.J. Development of the Korean version of the Geriatric Depression Scale and its short form among elderly psychiatric patients. J. Psychosom. Res. 2004, 57, 297–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Assari, S.; Smith, J.; Bazargan, M. Financial Strain not Education Attainment Impacts Various Health Domains in an Urban Sample of African American Older Adults in Los Angeles. 2019; in press. [Google Scholar]
  77. Burke, W.J.; Roccaforte, W.H.; Wengel, S.P. The short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale: A comparison with the 30-item form. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol. 1991, 4, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Chiang, K.S.; Green, K.E.; Cox, E.O. Rasch analysis of the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form. Gerontologist 2009, 49, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Durmaz, B.; Soysal, P.; Ellidokuz, H.; Isik, A.T. Validity and reliability of geriatric depression scale-15 (short form) in Turkish older adults. North. Clin. Istanb. 2018, 5, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Ferraro, F.R.; Chelminski, I. Preliminary normative data on the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-SF) in a young adult sample. J. Clin. Psychol. 1996, 52, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fountoulakis, K.N.; Tsolaki, M.; Iacovides, A.; Yesavage, J.; O’Hara, R.; Kazis, A.; Ierodiakonou, C. The validation of the short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) in Greece. Aging 1999, 11, 367–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Greenberg, S.A. How to try this: The Geriatric Depression Scale: Short Form. Am. J. Nurs. 2007, 107, 60–69; quiz 69–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lesher, E.L.; Berryhill, J.S. Validation of the Geriatric Depression Scale—Short Form among inpatients. J. Clin. Psychol. 1994, 50, 256–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Pedraza, O.; Dotson, V.M.; Willis, F.B.; Graff-Radford, N.R.; Lucas, J.A. Internal Consistency and Test-Retest Stability of the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form in African American Older Adults. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2009, 31, 412–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Zalavadiya, D.D.; Banerjee, A.; Sheth, A.M.; Rangoonwala, M.; Mitra, A.; Kadri, A.M. A Comparative Study of Depression and Associated Risk Factors among Elderly Inmates of Old Age Homes and Community of Rajkot: A Gujarati Version of the Geriatric Depression Scale-Short Form (GDS-G). Indian J. Community Med. 2017, 42, 204–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Alaja, R.; Seppa, K.; Sillanaukee, P.; Tienari, P.; Huyse, F.J.; Herzog, T.; Malt, U.F.; Lobo, A. Psychiatric referrals associated with substance use disorders: Prevalence and gender differences. European Consultation-Liaison Workgroup. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 1997, 21, 620–626. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  87. Beasley, G.M.; Ostbye, T.; Muhlbaier, L.H.; Foley, C.; Scarborough, J.; Turley, R.S.; Shapiro, M.L. Age and gender differences in substance screening may underestimate injury severity: A study of 9793 patients at level 1 trauma center from 2006 to 2010. J. Surg. Res. 2014, 188, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Boyd, C.J.; Blow, F.; Orgain, L.S. Gender differences among African-American substance abusers. J. Psychoact. Drugs 1993, 25, 301–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Brady, K.T.; Grice, D.E.; Dustan, L.; Randall, C. Gender differences in substance use disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 1993, 150, 1707–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Brady, K.T.; Randall, C.L. Gender differences in substance use disorders. Psychiatr. Clin. N. Am. 1999, 22, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Brown, T.G.; Kokin, M.; Seraganian, P.; Shields, N. The role of spouses of substance abusers in treatment: Gender differences. J. Psychoact. Drugs 1995, 27, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Brunette, M.; Drake, R.E. Gender differences in homeless persons with schizophrenia and substance abuse. Community Ment. Health J. 1998, 34, 627–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Brunette, M.F.; Drake, R.E. Gender differences in patients with schizophrenia and substance abuse. Compr. Psychiatry 1997, 38, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Buu, A.; Dabrowska, A.; Heinze, J.E.; Hsieh, H.F.; Zimmerman, M.A. Gender differences in the developmental trajectories of multiple substance use and the effect of nicotine and marijuana use on heavy drinking in a high-risk sample. Addict. Behav. 2015, 50, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Kim, Y.; Park, I.; Kang, S. Age and gender differences in health risk perception. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2018, 26, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cohen-Louck, K.; Levy, I. Risk perception of a chronic threat of terrorism: Differences based on coping types, gender and exposure. Int. J. Psychol. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Leifheit-Limson, E.C.; D’Onofrio, G.; Daneshvar, M.; Geda, M.; Bueno, H.; Spertus, J.A.; Krumholz, H.M.; Lichtman, J.H. Sex Differences in Cardiac Risk Factors, Perceived Risk, and Health Care Provider Discussion of Risk and Risk Modification Among Young Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: The VIRGO Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2015, 66, 1949–1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rhodes, N.; Pivik, K. Age and gender differences in risky driving: The roles of positive affect and risk perception. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 923–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Spigner, C.; Hawkins, W.; Loren, W. Gender differences in perception of risk associated with alcohol and drug use among college students. Women Health 1993, 20, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Yawson, A.E.; Appiah, L.K.; Yawson, A.O.; Bonsu, G.; Aluze-Ele, S.; Amanhyia, N.A.; Lartey, M.; Adjei, A.A.; Lawson, A.L.; Beckwith, C.; et al. Sex differences in perceived risk and testing experience of HIV in an urban fishing setting in Ghana. Int. J. Equity Health 2014, 13, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Clerkin, E.M.; Werntz, A.J.; Magee, J.C.; Lindgren, K.P.; Teachman, B.A. Evaluating age differences in coping motives as a mediator of the link between social anxiety symptoms and alcohol problems. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2014, 28, 880–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Lahelma, E.; Pietilainen, O.; Ferrie, J.; Kivimaki, M.; Lahti, J.; Marmot, M.; Rahkonen, O.; Sekine, M.; Shipley, M.; Tatsuse, T.; et al. Changes Over Time in Absolute and Relative Socioeconomic Differences in Smoking: A Comparison of Cohort Studies From Britain, Finland, and Japan. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2016, 18, 1697–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Preston, S.H.; Wang, H. Sex mortality differences in the United States: The role of cohort smoking patterns. Demography 2006, 43, 631–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Rosendahl, K.I.; Galanti, M.R.; Gilljam, H. Trajectories of smokeless tobacco use and of cigarette smoking in a cohort of Swedish adolescents: Differences and implications. Nicotine Tob. Res. 2008, 10, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Sellers, T.A.; Bailey-Wilson, J.E.; Potter, J.D.; Rich, S.S.; Rothschild, H.; Elston, R.C. Effect of cohort differences in smoking prevalence on models of lung cancer susceptibility. Genet. Epidemiol. 1992, 9, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Gyamfi, P.; Brooks-Gunn, J.; Jackson, A.P. Associations between employment and financial and parental stress in low-income single black mothers. Women Health 2001, 32, 119–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Moran, K.E.; Ommerborn, M.J.; Blackshear, C.T.; Sims, M.; Clark, C.R. Financial Stress and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in the Jackson Heart Study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2019, 56, 224–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Andrade, F.C.D.; Kramer, K.Z.; Monk, J.K.; Greenlee, A.J.; Mendenhall, R. Financial stress and depressive symptoms: The impact of an intervention of the Chicago Earned Income Tax Periodic Payment. Public Health 2017, 153, 99–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Francoeur, R.B. Cumulative financial stress and strain in palliative radiation outpatients: The role of age and disability. Acta Oncol. 2005, 44, 369–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  110. Hanratty, B.; Holland, P.; Jacoby, A.; Whitehead, M. Financial stress and strain associated with terminal cancer—A review of the evidence. Palliat. Med. 2007, 21, 595–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Logue, B.J. Women at risk: Predictors of financial stress for retired women workers. Gerontologist 1991, 31, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Medical Electronics Buyers Guide 1984, Part 6. CAT scanners, electrical safety & test equipment, financial management, neonatal & pediatric equipment, pulmonary/respiratory equipment, simulators, stress test systems/ergometers. Med. Electron. 1984, 15, 116–192. [Google Scholar]
  113. Guillaumier, A.; Twyman, L.; Paul, C.; Siahpush, M.; Palazzi, K.; Bonevski, B. Financial Stress and Smoking within a Large Sample of Socially Disadvantaged Australians. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Assari, S. Blacks’ Diminished Return of Education Attainment on Subjective Health; Mediating Effect of Income. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Assari, S. The Benefits of Higher Income in Protecting against Chronic Medical Conditions Are Smaller for African Americans than Whites. Healthcare 2018, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Assari, S.; Caldwell, C.H. Family Income at Birth and Risk of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder at Age 15: Racial Differences. Children 2019, 6, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Assari, S.; Caldwell, C.H.; Mincy, R. Family Socioeconomic Status at Birth and Youth Impulsivity at Age 15; Blacks’ Diminished Return. Children 2018, 5, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Assari, S.; Hani, N. Household Income and Children’s Unmet Dental Care Need; Blacks’ Diminished Return. Dent. J. 2018, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Assari, S.; Thomas, A.; Caldwell, C.H.; Mincy, R.B. 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, 21–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Assari, S.; Caldwell, C.H.; Zimmerman, M.A. Family Structure and Subsequent Anxiety Symptoms; Minorities’ Diminished Return. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Assari, S. Educational Attainment Better Protects African American Women than African American Men Against Depressive Symptoms and Psychological Distress. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sheikh, J.I.; Yesavage, J.A. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. In Clinical Gerontology: A Guide to Assessment and Intervention; Brink, T.L., Ed.; The Haworth Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 165–173. [Google Scholar]
Ijerph 16 01208 g001 550
Figure 1. Gender differences in the odds ratio (OR) of high depressive symptoms (a) and current drinking (b).
Figure 1. Gender differences in the odds ratio (OR) of high depressive symptoms (a) and current drinking (b).
Ijerph 16 01208 g001
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
CharacteristicsAllWomenMen
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)Mean (SD)
Age (Years)74.06 (6.92)74.46 (6.91)73.30 (6.89)
Educational Attainment (Years) *12.70 (2.33)12.95 (2.02)12.23 (2.76)
Financial Strain8.21 (4.92)8.11 (4.67)8.39 (5.38)
Comorbid Medical Conditions2.97 (1.83)2.08 (1.83)2.74 (1.80)
Depressive Symptoms2.10 (2.44)2.08 (2.45)2.16 (2.43)
n (%)n (%)n (%)
Gender
Women378 (65.6)378 (100.0)-
Men198 (34.4)-198 (100.0)
Current Drinking Status *
No406 (70.5)277 (73.3)129 (65.2)
Yes170 (29.5)101 (26.7)69 (34.8)
Current Smoking Status *
No491 (85.2)343 (90.7)148 (74.7)
Yes85 (14.8)35 (9.3)50 (25.3)
* p < 0.05 for comparison of men and women.
Table
Table 2. Bivariate correlations.
Table 2. Bivariate correlations.
Characteristics12345678
All
1 Gender (Male)1.00−0.08−0.15 **0.03−0.09 *0.020.09 *0.21 **
2 Age (Years)1.00−0.19 **−0.10 *0.01−0.10 *−0.14 **−0.26 **
3 Educational Attainment (Years)1.00−0.14 **−0.08 *−0.070.05−0.03
4 Financial Difficulty1.000.23 **0.31 **0.16 **0.16 **
5 Comorbid Medical Conditions1.000.33 **0.000.05
6 Depressive Symptoms1.000.070.17 **
7 Current Drinking1.000.27 **
8 Current Smoking1.00
Women
2 Age (Years)1.00−0.22 **−0.11 *0.02−0.12 *−0.08−0.16 **
3 Educational Attainment (Years)1.00−0.05−0.12 *−0.060.070.04
4 Financial Difficulty1.000.25 **0.32 **0.14 **0.16 **
5 Comorbid Medical Conditions1.000.31 **−0.030.06
6 Depressive Symptoms1.000.040.26 **
7 Current Drinking1.000.12 *
8 Current Smoking1.00
Men
2 Age (Years)1.00−0.20 **−0.08−0.04−0.06−0.24 **−0.39 **
3 Educational Attainment (Years)1.00−0.23 **−0.07−0.090.05−0.03
4 Financial Difficulty1.000.21 **0.28 **0.20 **0.15 *
5 Comorbid Medical Conditions1.000.38 **0.070.09
6 Depressive Symptoms1.000.130.06
7 Current Drinking1.000.43 **
8 Current Smoking1.00
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Summary of multivariable logistic regression models in the pooled sample.
Table 3. Summary of multivariable logistic regression models in the pooled sample.
OR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CI
Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4
Gender (Men)2.85 ***1.67–4.861.690.80–3.585.60 ***2.61–12.003.90 **1.41–10.80
Age (Years)0.87 ***0.82–0.920.87 ***0.82–0.920.87 ***0.82–0.920.87 ***0.82–0.92
Educational Attainment0.960.86–1.070.960.85–1.070.960.86–1.070.950.85–1.07
Financial Difficulty1.030.98–1.081.030.98–1.081.030.98–1.081.050.98–1.12
Comorbid Medical Conditions1.020.88–1.191.020.87–1.181.030.89–1.201.020.87–1.19
Depressive Symptoms1.14 *1.03–1.261.14 *1.03–1.261.25 ***1.11–1.421.13 *1.02–1.26
Current Drinking (Yes)3.61 ***2.13–6.132.13 *1.00–4.513.72 ***2.18–6.363.63 ***2.14–6.16
Gender (Men) × Current Drinking--2.89 *1.00–8.41----
Gender (Men) × Depressive Symptoms----0.79 *0.65–0.95--
Gender (Men) × Financial Difficulty------0.970.88–1.06
Outcome: Smoking (Current). * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Summary of multivariable logistic regression models by gender.
Table 4. Summary of multivariable logistic regression models by gender.
OR95% CIOR95% CI
Women (Model 5)Men (Model 6)
Age (Years)0.92 *0.86–0.990.81 ***0.74–0.89
Educational Attainment1.070.86–1.350.88 #0.76–1.02
Financial Difficulty1.050.98–1.131.010.93–1.09
Comorbid Medical Conditions0.970.78–1.211.140.91–1.44
Depressive Symptoms1.27 ***1.12–1.430.950.79–1.14
Current Drinking (Yes)1.97 #0.91–4.237.03 ***3.10–15.91
Outcome: Smoking (Current). # p < 0.1, * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Assari, S.; Smith, J.L.; Zimmerman, M.A.; Bazargan, M. Cigarette Smoking among Economically Disadvantaged African-American Older Adults in South Los Angeles: Gender Differences. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071208

AMA Style

Assari S, Smith JL, Zimmerman MA, Bazargan M. Cigarette Smoking among Economically Disadvantaged African-American Older Adults in South Los Angeles: Gender Differences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(7):1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071208

Chicago/Turabian Style

Assari, Shervin, James L. Smith, Marc A. Zimmerman, and Mohsen Bazargan. 2019. "Cigarette Smoking among Economically Disadvantaged African-American Older Adults in South Los Angeles: Gender Differences" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 7: 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071208

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop