Journal of Physics: Conference Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Hookah Smoking with Health Risk Perception of Different Types of

Tobacco
To cite this article: H J Jamil et al 2020 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1664 012127

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 185.95.205.3 on 18/11/2020 at 16:38

1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

Hookah Smoking with Health Risk Perception of Different

Types of Tobacco

H J Jamil1, 2, M R A Albahri3, N H Al-Noor4, T H Al-Noor5, A R Heydari3, A K

Rajan1, J Arnetz1, 2, B Arnetz1, 2 and L N M Tawfiq5
1
Wayne State University, Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences,
Detroit, Michigan, USA.
2
Michigan State University, Department of Family Medicine, Lansing, Michigan, USA.
3
Wayne State University, Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Michigan, USA.
4
Mustansiriyah University, College of Science, Department of Mathematics, Baghdad,
Iraq.
5
University of Baghdad, Education for Pure Science College, Ibn Al-Haitham, Baghdad,
Iraq.

E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. Hookah is a tobacco product that is gaining popularity in the United States and other
countries, particularly among the youth. In this paper, we examine the perception of health risks of
different types of tobacco use in comparison to hookah use among 671 participants respond to a
survey conducted in Detroit Metropolitan Area, Michigan who never smoke or smoke "cigarette,
hookah, both cigarette and hookah"; and determine whether smoking status influenced the
perceived health risks of hookah smoking when compared to other forms of tobacco use. The
survey had 43 questions including questions about demographics, socioeconomic status, health
care, etc. All statistical analyses were done using SPSS version 22. This study found that 44.1%
of the participants believed that hookah was less harmful than each of the other tobacco
products studied. Approximately 26% of cigarette smokers are likely to smoke hookah also.
These findings emphasize the importance of spreading awareness about the health risks associated
with hookah smoking and implementing strict laws for showing tobacco-related warnings in
hookah advertisements and on the packets of hookah accessories given the increasing popularity of
hookah, especially among the youth, in the United States.

Keywords. Chewing tobacco/Snuff/Dip, Cigars/ Cigarillos/Little cigars, Filter cigarettes, Menthol

cigarettes.

1. Introduction
Tobacco smoking is a major risk factor for many diseases such as chronic obstructive lung diseases,
coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic bronchitis, and nicotine addiction [1][2]. Hookah also is
known as a water pipe, narghile and shisha [3][4], is a type of tobacco use that is common in the Middle
Eastern and Asian countries [5]. However, it is becoming more common in the US and European
countries, especially among youngsters [6][7][8][9][10], mainly in those of Middle-Eastern [11][12][13],
and Asian descent [7]. High school and college-aged students have shown a growing interest in hookah
[14], as the most socially acceptable and attractive form of tobacco use when compared with cigars and
cigarettes [15]. Studies have shown that hookah is considered less addictive [16][17], and less harmful
than cigarettes [17].
It is well documented the health risks of cigarette smoking but not for hookah smoking [18], Hookah

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

smoke contains many of the same harmful chemicals in traditional cigarette smoke, including Carbon
monoxide, Arsenic, Chromium, Cobalt, Cadmium, Nickel, Formaldehyde, Acetaldehyde, Acrolein, Lead,
Polonium 210 [19], Nicotine, Tar, containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzo (a) pyrene
which is react and bind to DNA, resulting several forms of cancer [20][21]. For example, a single hookah-
smoking session causes the inhalation of carcinogenic substances in significantly higher quantities than
smoking a single cigarette [22]. Another example, it has been shown that hookah smokers have a higher
risk for esophageal cancer compared to non-tobacco users [23]. Because hookahs come into direct contact
with the mouth and are shared by multiple smokers, infectious diseases of the lungs, mouth, lips, and
gums can be spread to other people during a session [24]. Contagious diseases ranging from oral herpes to
the flu, and more dangerous illnesses such as tuberculosis and hepatitis [24]. However, smoke emitted
from a hookah contains many harmful chemicals, some in higher quantities than in cigarette emissions,
which can cause serious health risks to second-hand smokers including workers at hookah lounges and
individuals who cohabit with a hookah smoker [25]. The tobacco mixture used in hookah contains
molasses and fruit flavours, which cause the hookah smoke to smell fruity and harmless. This, in addition
to the belief that the water in the hookah filters the harmful ingredients of tobacco smoke and that hookah
smoking is less addictive, may cause the impression that it is relatively harmless compared to cigarettes
[16][26][27]. In spite of the fact that studies have shown many harmful effects associated with hookah
smoking, the manufacturers of hookah accessories do not diligently display warning labels about the
harmfulness of smoking on the packets [28][29]. Advertisements of hookah on the internet also do not
usually mention the tobacco-related warning [30].
Many studies have shown that a majority of hookah smokers believed that hookah smoking was less
harmful than cigarette smoking [31][6][32][9]. Other factors that were found to influence the perception
of risks of smoking include education [33], gender [34] and income [35], also the meaning of smoking
risks varies from individual to individual and are influenced by the social and cultural structure of a
community [36].
The cigarette is a common tobacco product against which other tobacco products are compared. There are
many studies comparing the perception of risks of hookah smoking to cigarette smoking [6][31][32]. In
this study, the participants were asked to rate the harmfulness of smoking hookah versus chewing
tobacco/snuff/dip, cigars/cigarillos/little cigars, cigarettes, filter cigarettes, and menthol cigarettes.
Therefore, the objectives of this study were: (1) To explore the characteristics of study groups who smoke
(a) hookah only, (b) cigarette only, (c) both hookah and cigarette and (d) never smoke) by survey
variables. (2) To determine the prevalence of study groups by survey variables. (3) To examine the
perception of health risks of different types of tobacco smoking (a) chewing tobacco/snuff/dip, (b)
cigars/cigarillos/little cigars, (c) cigarette (d) filter cigarettes, and (e) menthol cigarettes, when compared
to hookah smoking.

2. Study population and setting

This study was conducted in a convenient sample in Detroit Metropolitan Area, Michigan, and was
approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wayne State University. A survey was administered in
paper forms among adults from 1 st January to 30th June 2010. Flyers and information sheets explaining
the importance of the study and enhancing community people to participate voluntarily in the study
through contact information prepared. A research assistant (RA) distribute flyers to Churches and
Mosques, while he disseminates flyer and information sheet to cafes of four community colleges, primary
health clinics, and dental clinics. The manager of three dental and two primary healthcare clinics accept to
collaborate in the study and to disseminate the flyer and information sheet to their clients, then those who
show interest voluntarily, survey questionnaires without any identifiers will be given to them and the
manager will keep all the completed survey with hi as RA plan to visit the clinics one day per week to
collect the survey questionnaires from the clinic manager. The research assistant (RA) was visiting the
cafes of community colleges two days per week, giving survey questionnaires’ (which did not ask for
name or address of participants) to those who showed interest in the study and he was waiting in the cafe

2
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

to get the survey back from them, All completed survey was handed directly to the RA who took them to
the principal investigator of the project at Wayne State University who kept all completed surveys locked
in cabinet in his office only to be accessed by him or the RA for data entry or review. The final study
populations which were considered for this study were 671 individuals who answered most of the
questionnaire on the hard copy of the survey as we excluded the 209 webpage survey on the
recommendation of one of the reviewers. Also, 85 surveys were excluded because of missing several
questions in particular smoking status question, also 38 Asian Americans were excluded because only one
was a hookah smoker. The study participants were residents in 156 zip codes of Michigan. 40.5% of
participants were Chaldean and 32.8% were Arab, the reaming 26.7% were Black, White and Hispanic.
So, we combined the races, black, white and Hispanic to form a category called non-Middle Eastern
group. The survey had 43 questions including questions about demographics (such as age); socioeconomic
status (such as education); and health care (such as insurance status). Also, there were several other
questions used in another study. Tobacco categories were determined from the answers to the question,
‘If you currently smoke what you smoke?. The answer was one of the following: (a) cigarettes, (b)
hookah, (c) both, and (d) never smoke. Base on that the study populations were classified into four groups
according to their smoking status. There were five questions concerning health risk perception as follow
(a) How would you rate the health risks of chewing tobacco/snuff/dip, compared to hookah smoking?, (b)
How would you rate the health risks of cigars/cigarillos/little cigars compared to hookah smoking?, (c)
How would you rate the health risks of cigarette smoking compared to hookah smoking?, (d) How would
you rate the health risks of cigarettes with filters compared to hookah smoking?, (e) How would you rate
the health risks of Cigarettes with menthol, compared to hookah smoking?. The answer to these questions
was as follows (1) I don’t know, (2) Less dangerous, (3) Equally as dangerous, and (4) More dangerous.
These answers were modified as follows: answer (1) was deleted, answer (2) was kept as it is and called
“< harmful”, answer (3) and (4) were combined and called “≥harmful”. Thus the binomial variable for
each question comparing the health risks of each type of tobacco to hookah smoking was created with the
categories “≥ harmful” (giving “1” to it) and ‘<harmful (giving “0” to it).

3. Statistical analyses
All statistical analyses were done using SPSS version 22. A chi-square test was used to test differences
between study groups and different variables. We performed five binary logistic regressions analysis to
identify variables affecting the perception of health risks of each type of smoking in relation to hookah
smoking. Then we combined the answer of the five questions of perception which end in a new variable
with a score range from 0 to 5 (higher mean more harmful and it will be used as dependent variable), then
we perform a linear regression to predict the variables for health risk perception. Kolmogorov-Smirnov
test was done to test for normality of the variable and it showed that the distribution was not normal.

4. Characteristics of the sample

The characteristic of 671 participants was presented in (table 1) which reveals the mean and standard
deviation (SD) of the age of participants [37.3 ± (15.7) year], with the number and percentage of all other
variables. There were significant differences (p < 0.05 to p < 0.001) between the four study groups and
age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, and income variables. The prevalence rate of
tobacco smoke among the study population was 38.9%, while those who smoke hookah only were 8.8%,
cigarette only 14.5% and those who smoke both 15.6%, other prevalence rates of sub-variables are listed
in the table. Table 2 Shows risk perceptions of hookah smoking compared to other forms of tobacco use
according to smoking status (frequency and percentage based on available response). Only significant
differences were found in the perception of health risk for Chewing tobacco/Snuff/Dip (p < 0.001) and a
cigarette (p < 0.05) in relation to hookah smoke across the four study groups as well as when all types of
tobacco were combined. However, 44.1% of the participants believed that hookah was less harmful than
each of the other tobacco products studied (range between 28.2-16.9%). Table 3 shows the results of five

3
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

binomial logistic regressions analysis to predict the perception variables of ≥ harmful risk factors for each
type of tobacco. The predicted variables were varied when examined each of these five equations analysis.
Some variables share equations e.g. those who do not do regular exercise were health risk factors in 4 out
of 5 equations analysis while some participants who were married, student (sub variable of employment
status) and do not have health insurance shows once within the five equations. Linear regression analysis
(table 4) was used for the combined perceptions of health risk factors of the five types of tobacco in
relation to hookah smoke as a dependent variable (< harmful vs. ≥ harmful). The mean of the continuous
variable for risk perception was 3.17 and the SD was 1.80. Results reveal that the health risk factors
among those who smoke any type of tobacco compared to hookah smoke were among participants who
born in US, female, married, hold a high school or less and do not do regular exercise. On average,
hookah-only smokers were younger than the other three groups.

5. Discussion
The results of the study (table 1) reveal the prevalence rate of tobacco smoking, irrespective of its types,
among the study population, was 38.9%, those who smoke hookah only shows the lowest (8.8%)
prevalence compare to those who smoke cigarette only (14.5%) or those who smoke both (15.6%), which
is less than the prevalence of cigarette smoking among Michigan population according to Behavioral Risk
Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS, 2010). Since the majority of the study population was Middle
Eastern (Arab and Chaldean), the prevalence of hookah smoking was higher among Chaldean (12.9%) and
Arab (8.6) compare to Non-Middle Eastern group (2.8%). However, the prevalence of hookah was higher
among students (16.9%), youth age 18-24 years (15%), hold high school and more (9.8%), born in US
(7.7%), marital status single (12.2%), income more than $20,000 (10.8%) and those who do regular
exercise (9.6%), and female (8.9%). This result is comparable to the result of another study that showed
that hookah is considered more attractive and acceptable than some other tobacco products [15]. Also, it
was clear that the perception of health risk was less harmful in hookah smoking compared to the smoking
behaviour of participants with different types of tobacco use (table 2). It is of interest to notice that 24 out
of 25 possibilities of the responders of the survey thought that hookah was less harmful than all the other
types of tobacco products studied. In general, 88.4% of total participants considered hookah to be less
harmful than and any other types of tobacco product when we combined the five perceptions, it is of
interest to find 68.1% of total participants who smoke filter cigarettes respond that health risk from
smoking hookah was less than any other types of tobacco although the range of percentage between the
study groups was varied. This is similar to another study on hookah smokers which reveals that 58.3% of
the participants believed that hookah smoking was less harmful than cigarette smoking [26]. This is in the
agreement of other studies that have shown that those who smoked hookah were likely to have a lower
perception of harm from hookah smoking [31][9].
This is interesting because filter cigarettes have filters in them and it is a common belief that the water in
hookah would filter the harmful substances in tobacco smoke; hence, both of them may seem to have
similar health risks. The reason that the responders felt hookah to be less harmful than filter cigarettes
maybe because the molasses and fruit flavor in hookah cause the smoke to seem relatively harmless.
Examining the variables predictors of perception health risk factors for likelihood of ≥ harmful for each
type of tobacco in comparison to hookah smoke using binary logic regression analysis (table 3) reveal the
following: It is similar to another study by Bombard et al. (2007) [37] that showed that 26% of male
cigarette smokers are concurrent users of other tobacco products.
Cigarette-only smokers also did not show any significant difference in their perception of harm compared
to nonsmokers.

Other factors that were associated with a lower perception of harm were being unemployed and exercising
at least once per week. This is interesting because exercising at least once per week is healthy behavior
and those who chose that behavior would be expected to have better knowledge about the health risks

4
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

associated with hookah smoking. Those who were age 45 to 54 years were likely to rate the health risks of
hookah as more harmful than those age 55 and above.
Gender, marital status, education, income, and insurance status did not have an effect on the perception of
harm when adjusted for other factors. When adjusted for other factors, Middle-Eastern ethnicity also did
not have an effect on the rating of health risks of hookah. It is interesting because those of Middle-Eastern
descent are more likely to be exposed to hookah use in their homes and community.

6. Limitations
The study was based on self-reported smoking behaviors. Hence there can be reporting bias. There were
many participants who responded was ‘I don’t know’ to the questions about risk perceptions (chewing
tobacco/snuff/dip 21.6%, cigars/cigarillos/little cigars 15.6%, cigarettes 16.7%, filter cigarettes 13.9%,
and menthol cigarettes 15.1%). The reason for that response might have been because most did not know
much about the different types of tobacco products. The survey did not ask whether the participants used
any form of tobacco other than hookah and cigarettes. Another limitation is that this is a cross-sectional
study and hence we cannot determine whether the perceptions led to the smoking behavior or the smoking
habits led to developing the perceptions.

7. Recommendation
Health care providers should be made aware that cigarette smokers have a high likelihood of using other
tobacco products such as hookah, and tobacco cessation counseling should address that issue.
This finding raises the concern that hookah smoking is likely to become more popular if the public is not
made aware of the health risks associated with it.

8. Conclusions
This study found that hookah is considered to be less harmful than many other tobacco products including
cigarettes irrespective of the smoking status of the participants. Approximately 26% of cigarette smokers
are likely to smoke hookah also and those who smoke both hookah and cigarettes are more likely to have
lower risk perceptions about hookah smoking than nonsmokers. These findings emphasize the importance
of spreading awareness about the health risks associated with hookah smoking and implementing strict
laws for showing tobacco-related warnings in hookah advertisements and on the packets of hookah
accessories given the increasing popularity of hookah, especially among the youth, in the United States.

5
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

Table 1. Characteristics of the study population and prevalence rate of tobacco according to smoking
status.
Hookah
Never Smoke Cigarettes only Both Total#
Variable only
n=410(61.1) n=97(14.5) n=105(15.6) n=671(100)
n=59(8.8)
Age [Mean (SD)] 37.7(16.1) 40.9(14.9) 31.3(15.0) 36.1(14.5) 37.3(15.7)
Main variable Sub-variable No.(%) No.(%) No.(%) No.(%) No.(%)
18-24 Y 117(60.6) 19(9.8) 29(15.0) 28(14.5) 193(28.8)
Age Group*** 25-44 Y 152(58.7) 41(15.8) 19(7.3) 47(18.2) 259(38.6)
44 +Y 141(64.4) 37(16.9) 11(5.0) 30(13.7) 219(32.6)
Female 233(71.7) 31(9.5) 29(8.9) 32(9.8) 325(48.4)
Gender***
Male 177(51.2) 66(19.1) 30(8.7) 73(21.1) 346(51.6)
Chaldean 166(61.0) 24(8.8) 35(12.9) 47(17.3) 272(40.5)
Arab 125(56.8) 24(10.9) 19(8.6) 52(23.6) 220(32.8)
Ethnicity***
Non Middle-
119(66.5) 49(27.4) 5(2.8) 6(3.4) 179(26.7)
Eastern
Outside US 209(58.1) 67(18.6) 35(9.7) 49(13.6) 360(53.7)
Place Born***
In US 201(64.6) 30(9.6) 24(7.7) 56(18) 311(46.3)
Marital Single 218(59.2) 51(13.9) 45(12.2) 54(14.7) 368(55)
Status** Married 192(63.4) 46(15.2) 14(4.6) 51(16.8) 303(45)
≤ H.S. 159(60.7) 36(13.7) 19(7.3) 48(18.3) 262(39)
Education
H.S. + 251(61.4) 61(14.9) 40(9.8) 57(13.9) 409(61)
Student 75(57.7) 10(7.7) 22(16.9) 23(17.7) 130(19.4)
Employment
Status*** Unemployed 100(66.6) 25(16.7) 7(4.7) 18(12) 150(22.3)
Employed 235(60) 62(15.9) 30(7.7) 64(16.4) 391(58.3)
≥ $20,000 264(59.3) 63(14.2) 48(10.8) 70(15.7) 445(66.3)
Income***
< $20,000 146(64.6) 34(15) 11(4.9) 35(15.5) 226(33.7)
Health No 117(61.5) 29(15.3) 14(7.4) 30(15.8) 190(28.3)
insurance Yes 293(60.9) 68(14.1) 45(9.4) 75(15.6) 481(71.7)
Exercise No 224(64.7) 43(12.5) 28(8.1) 51(14.7) 346(51.6)
regularly Yes 186(57.2) 54(16.6) 31(9.6) 54(16.6) 325(48.4)

# Ignoring the column ‘Total’, the sum of percentages across each row is 100
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 , ***P < 0.001

6
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

Table 2. Risk perceptions of hookah smoking compared to other forms of tobacco use according to
smoking status (No. & % based on available response).

Never Smoke Cigarettes Both / Total /

Hookah only
Types of tobacco / n=410 only / n=97 n=105 n=671
Perception / n=59(8 8)
smoking (61.1) (14.5) (15.6) (100)

N0. (%) N0. (%) N0. (%) N0. (%) N0. (%)
< harmful 80(27.2) 36(46.8) 19(39.6) 33(39.3) 168(33.4)
Hookah vs. Chewing
tobacco/Snuff/Dip ***
≥ harmful 214(72.8) 41(53.2) 29(60.4) 51(60.7) 335(66.6)

< harmful 126(38.5) 32(41.6) 24(45.3) 47(51.6) 229(41.8)

Hookah vs. Cigars/
Cigarillos/Little cigars
≥ harmful 201(61.5) 45(58.4) 29(54.7) 44(48.4) 319(58.2)

< harmful 119(35.8) 16(21.1) 17(32.7) 38(40.4) 190(34.3)

Hookah vs. Cigarettes*
≥ harmful 213(64.2) 60(78.9) 35(67.3) 56(59.6) 364(65.7)

< harmful 119(34.5) 16(20.3) 14(29.8) 32(33) 181(31.9)

Hookah vs. Filter
cigarettes
≥ harmful 226(65.5) 63(79.7) 33(70.2) 65(67.0) 387(68.1)

< harmful 61(18.2) 14(17.7) 11(23.9) 17(17.7) 103(18.5)

Hookah vs. Menthol
cigarettes
≥ harmful 274(81.8) 65(82.3) 35(76.1) 79(82.3) 453(81.5)

< harmful 40(11.3) 7(8.6) 11(20.8) 10(10.2) 68(11.6)

All 5 types combined
≥ harmful 315(88.7) 74(91.4) 42(79.2) 88(89.8) 519(88.4)

* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001

7
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

Table 3. Binary logistic regression analysis with means of combined individual risk
perception of hookah smoking versus other forms of tobacco use as the dependent variable.
95% C.I. for EXP(B)
Predicting Risk Factors B Sig. Exp(B)
Lower Upper
Likelihood for having more dangerous Chew Snuff compare to hookah
Female 0.90 0.000 2.46 1.55 3.91
Student vs. Employed (Ref) -0.64 0.037 0.53 0.29 0.96
No exercise 0.61 0.008 1.85 1.18 2.91
No health insurance vs. have(Ref) -0.54 0.036 0.58 0.35 0.97
Likelihood for having more dangerous Cigar Cigarillo Little cigar compare to hookah
Age in Years (continuous) -0.02 0.034 0.98 0.97 1.00
Arab vs. Non Middle-Eastern
-0.79 0.014 0.46 0.24 0.85
(Ref)
Born in US 0.56 0.030 1.76 1.05 2.93
No exercise 0.76 0.000 2.13 1.41 3.23
Likelihood for having more dangerous cigarette compare to hookah
Participant smoke cigarette only 0.84 0.043 2.31 1.03 5.20
Ethnicity Groups 0.020
Chaldean vs. Non Middle-Eastern
-0.78 0.030 0.46 0.23 0.93
(Ref)
Arab vs. Non Middle-Eastern
-0.97 0.005 0.38 0.19 0.75
(Ref)
H.S. or less vs. H.S. + -0.47 0.027 0.63 0.41 0.95
No exercise 0.49 0.026 1.63 1.06 2.51
Likelihood for having more dangerous cigarette with filter compare to hookah
Arab vs. Non Middle-Eastern
-0.73 0.037 0.48 0.24 0.96
(Ref)
Born in US 0.61 0.028 1.85 1.07 3.19
Single vs. Married (Ref) -0.52 0.025 0.60 0.38 0.94
H.S. or less vs. H.S. + -0.74 0.001 0.48 0.31 0.72
Student vs. Employed (Ref) 0.69 0.033 2.00 1.06 3.76
Income $20,000 + vs. ≤ $20,000 -0.60 0.018 0.55 0.34 0.90
No exercise 0.53 0.019 1.69 1.09 2.63
Likelihood for having more dangerous cigarette with menthol compare to hookah
Age in Years (continuous) 0.03 0.003 1.03 1.01 1.05
Female 0.56 0.030 1.75 1.06 2.89
Born in US 0.66 0.046 1.93 1.01 3.69
Income $20,000 + vs. ≤ $20,000 -0.65 0.034 0.52 0.29 0.95
Variable(s) entered equation: Study Population, Age in Years, Gender, Ethnicity, Place of birth,
Marital status, Education, Employment status, Income, Exercise regularly and health insurance.

8
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

Table 4. Linear regression analysis to predict risk factors for combine perceptions of smoking
different types of tobacco concerning compare to hookah smoking.
likelihood for have more 95.0% C.I. for B
Standardized
dangerous health risk compare to t Sig. Partial
Beta Lower Bound Upper Bound
hookah
Male vs Female (Ref) -0.09 -2.05 0.041 -0.66 -0.01 -0.09

Born outside US vs In Us (Ref) -0.17 -3.16 0.002 -1.00 -0.23 -0.14

Married vs Single (Ref) 0.10 2.20 0.028 0.04 0.72 0.10

≤ H.S. vs. H.S. + (Ref) 0.10 2.22 0.027 0.04 0.67 0.10

Exercise vs. No exercise (Ref) -0.09 -1.97 0.050 -0.63 0.00 -0.09
Variable(s) entered equation: Study Population, Age in Years, Gender, Ethnicity, Place of birth, Marital
status, Education, Employment status, Income, Exercise regularly and health insurance.

References
[1] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Prevalence and Trends Data [Graph illustration of tobacco for Michiganin2010]
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/#esti.
[2] Jennifer C, Kimberly G W, Kimberly D W, Dannielle K, Seth M N, Margaret H S and Erin L S 2016
Adolescent and Young Adult Perceptions of Hookah and Little Cigars/Cigarillos: Implications for
Risk Messages J Health Commun. 21(7) pp 818-25.
[3] Pepper J K, Eissenberg T 2014 Waterpipes and electronic cigarettes: increasing prevalence and
expanding science Chem. Res Toxicol. 27 pp 1336-43.
[4] Shihadeh A, Schubert J, Klaiany J, El Sabban M, Luch A, Saliba NA 2015 Toxicant content, physical
properties and biological activity of waterpipe tobacco smoke and its tobacco-free alternatives Tob
Control 24(Suppl 1).
[5] Akl E A, Gunukula S K, Aleem S, Obeid R, Jaoude P A, Honeine R and Irani J 2011 The prevalence
of waterpipe tobacco smoking among the general and specific populations: a systematic review
BMC Public Health 11 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-244.
[6] Jackson D and Aveyard P 2008 Waterpipe smoking in students: prevalence, risk factors, symptoms of
addiction, and smoke intake evidence from one British university BMC Public Health 8 doi:
10.1186/1471-2458-8-174.
[7] Jordan H M and Delnevo C D 2010 Emerging tobacco products: hookah use among New Jersey youth.
Prev Med 51(5) pp 394-96 doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.08.016.
[8] Parna K, Usin J and Ringmets I 2008 Cigarette and waterpipe smoking among adolescents in Estonia:
HBSC survey results, 1994-2006 BMC Public Health 8 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-392.
[9] Primack B A, Sidani J, Agarwal A A, Shadel W G, Donny E C and Eissenberg T E 2008 Prevalence of
and associations with waterpipe tobacco smoking among U.S. university students Ann. Behav. Med.
36(1) pp 81-86 doi: 10.1007/s12160-008-9047-6.
[10] Primack B A, Walsh M, Bryce C and Eissenberg T 2009 Water-pipe tobacco smoking among middle
and high school students in Arizona Pediatrics 123(2) pp 282-88 doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1663.
[11] Abughosh S, Wu I H, Peters R J, Hawari F and Essien E J 2012 Ethnicity and waterpipe smoking
among US students Int J Tuberc Lung Dis.16(11) pp 1551-57 doi: 10.5588/ijtld.12.0152.
[12] Rice V H, Weglicki L S, Templin T, Hammad A, Jamil H and Kulwicki A 2006 Predictors of Arab
American Adolescent Tobacco Use Merrill Palmer Q (Wayne State Univ Press) 52(2) pp 327-42.

9
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

[13] Weglicki L S, Templin T N, Rice V H, Jamil H and Hammad A 2008 Comparison of cigarette and
water-pipe smoking by Arab and non-Arab-American youth Am J Prev Med 35(4) pp 334-39 doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.037.
[14] Hookah Pipes 2018 ATS Patient Education Series Am J Respir Crit Care Med 198 pp17-18,
American Thoracic Society. https://www.atsjournals.org /doi/pdf/10.1164/rccm.1989P17.
[15] Smith-Simone S Y, Curbow B A and Stillman F A 2008 Differing psychosocial risk profiles of
college freshmen waterpipe, cigar, and cigarette smokers Addict Behav 33(12) pp1619-24 doi:
10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.07.017.
[16] Daniels K E and Roman N V 2013 A descriptive study of the perceptions and behaviors of waterpipe
use by university students in the Western Cape, South Africa Tob Induc Dis 11(1) p 4 doi:
10.1186/1617-9625-11-4.
[17] Noonan D and Patrick M E 2013 Factors associated with perceptions of hookah addictiveness and
harmfulness among young adults Subst Abus 34(1) pp 83-85 doi: 10.1080/08897077.2012.718251.
[18] Katurji M, Daher N, Sheheitli H, Saleh R and Shihadeh A 2010 Direct measurement of toxicants
inhaled by water pipe users in the natural environment using a real-time in situ sampling technique
Inhal Toxicol 22(13) pp 1101-09 doi: 10.3109/08958378.2010.524265.
[19] Terry M 2018 Hookah Smoking and Its Risks, Reviewed by Sanja Jelic, MD, Updated November 12,
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-hookah-and-is-it-a-safe-way-to-smoke-2825263.
[20] Huiqi L, Björn F, Gerd S, Yan B, Bo H, Gunnar E, Lars B and Eva M A 2019 Smoking-induced risk
of future cardiovascular disease is partly mediated by cadmium in tobacco: Malmö Diet and Cancer
Cohort Study. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-019-0495-1.
[21] U.S. Centers for Disease Control Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)1995
Toxicological Profile for Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
https://archive.epa.gov/region5/teach/web/pdf/bap_summary.pdf.
[22] Sepetdjian E, Shihadeh A and Saliba N A 2008 Measurement of 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in narghile waterpipe tobacco smoke Food Chem Toxicol 46(5) pp 1582-90 doi:
10.1016/j.fct.2007.12.028.
[23] Dar N A, Bhat G A, Shah I A, Iqbal B, Kakhdoomi M A, Nisar I and Boffetta P 2012 Hookah
smoking, nass chewing, and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Kashmir, India Br J Cancer
107(9) pp 1618-23 doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.449.
[24] Hookah: What’s Old Is New-and Unsafe 2017 Section on Tobacco Control, American Academy of
Pediatrics
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/healthissues/conditions/tobacco/Pages/Hookah.aspx.
[25] Daher N, Saleh R, Jaroudi E, Sheheitli H, Badr T, Sepetdjian E and Shihadeh A 2010 Comparison of
carcinogen, carbon monoxide, and ultrafine particle emissions from narghile waterpipe and
cigarette smoking: Sidestream smoke measurements and assessment of second-hand smoke
emission factors Atmos Environ 44(1) pp 8-14 doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.10.004.
[26] Aljarrah K, Ababneh Z Q and Al-Delaimy W K 2009 Perceptions of hookah smoking harmfulness:
predictors and characteristics among current hookah users Tob Induc Dis 5(1) p 16 doi:
10.1186/1617-9625-5-16.
[27] Amin T T, Amr M A, Zaza B O and Suleman W 2010 Harm perception, attitudes and predictors of
waterpipe (shisha) smoking among secondary school adolescents in Al-Hassa, Saudi Arabia Asian
Pac J Cancer Prev 11(2) pp 293-301.
[28] Morris D S, Fiala S C and Pawlak R 2012 Opportunities for policy interventions to reduce youth
hookah smoking in the United States. Preventing Chronic Disease, 9, E165. doi:
10.5888/pcd9.120082
[29] Nakkash R and Khalil J 2010 Health warning labelling practices on narghile (shisha, hookah)
waterpipe tobacco products and related accessories Tob Control 19(3) pp 235-39 doi:
10.1136/tc.2009.031773.

10
1st International Virtual Conference on Pure Science IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1664 (2020) 012127 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1664/1/012127

[30] Primack B A, Rice K R, Shensa A, Carroll M V, DePenna E J, Nakkash R and Barnett T E 2012 U.S.
hookah tobacco smoking establishments advertised on the internet Am J Prev Med 42(2) pp 150-56
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.013.
[31] Eissenberg T, Ward K D, Smith-Simone S and Maziak W 2008 Waterpipe tobacco smoking on a U.S.
College campus: prevalence and correlates J Adolesc Health 42(5) pp 526-29 doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.10.004.
[32] Jamil H, Elsouhag D, Hiller S, Arnetz J E and Arnetz B B 2010 Sociodemographic risk indicators of
hookah smoking among White Americans: a pilot study Nicotine Tob Res 12(5) pp 525-29 doi:
10.1093/ntr/ntq026.
[33] Tombor I, Urban R, Berkes T and Demetrovics Z 2010 Denial of smoking-related risk among
pregnant smokers Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(4) pp 524-30 doi: 10.3109/00016341003678427.
[34] Lundborg P and Andersson H 2008 Gender, risk perceptions, and smoking behavior J Health Econ
27(5) pp 1299-1311 doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2008.03.003.
[35] Li Q, Dresler C, Heck J E, Allwright S, Haglund M, Sanchez S and Hashibe M 2010 Knowledge and
beliefs about smoking and cancer among women in five European countries Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev 19(11) pp 2811-20 doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0432.
[36] Umesh R A and Dharma N B 2015 Perceived benefits and health risks of cigarette smoking among
young adults: insights from a cross-sectional study BioMed Central 13(1)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521492.
[37] Bombard J M, Pederson L L, Nelson D E and Malarcher A M 2007 Are smokers only using
cigarettes? Exploring current polytobacco use among an adult population Addict Behav 32(10) pp
2411-19. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.04.001.

11