Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Oct;29(5):429-439.
doi: 10.1037/pha0000476. Epub 2021 May 20.

Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding rural tobacco use disparities

Affiliations
Review

Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding rural tobacco use disparities

Jenny E Ozga et al. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Oct.

Abstract

Traditional tobacco product (cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) and polytobacco use rates are significantly higher among rural adolescents and adults compared to their nonrural counterparts. Such disparities are due to several factors that promote tobacco use initiation and continuation, including individual-level psychopharmacological factors and structural-level factors such as fewer tobacco control efforts (e.g., fewer smoke-free policies and lower tobacco excise taxes), targeted tobacco marketing, less access to health-relevant resources, and more positive cultural norms surrounding tobacco use in rural communities. In this review, we use cumulative disadvantage theory as a framework for understanding how psychopharmacological and structural-level factors serve as drivers of tobacco use in rural areas. We start by describing how structural-level differences between rural-nonrural communities impact psychopharmacological influences and, when available, how these factors influence tobacco use. We conclude by discussing the interplay between factors, providing suggestions for ways to assess our application of cumulative disadvantage theory empirically and making recommendations for research and policy implementation in rural areas. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ablah E, Dong F, & Konda K (2017). Tobacco-free policies at worksites in Kansas. BMC Public Health, 17(1), Article 566. 10.1186/s12889-017-4277-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Acuff SF, Dennhardt AA, Correia CJ, & Murphy JG (2019). Measurement of substance-free reinforcement in addiction: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 70(1), 79–90. 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adibe C, Craigmile PF, Onnen N, Schwartz E, & Roberts ME (2019). The relationship between tobacco retailer density and neighborhood demographics in Ohio. Ohio Journal of Public Health, 2(1), 1–7. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ali FRM, Rice K, Fang X, & Xu X (2020). Tobacco 21 policies in California and Hawaii and sales of cigarette packs: A difference-in-differences analysis. Tobacco Control, 29(5), 588–592. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055031 - DOI - PubMed
    1. American Lung Association. (2012). Cutting tobacco’s rural roots: Tobacco use in rural communities. Disparities in Lung Health.