Lack of Awareness of Human Papillomavirus Testing Among U.S. Women.

INTRODUCTION: National surveys provide important information for public health planning. Lack of preventive screenings awareness may result in unreliable survey estimates. This study examines women's awareness of receiving human papillomavirus testing using three national surveys. METHODS: In 2022, self-reported data analyses on human papillomavirus testing status among women without hysterectomy were conducted from the 2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n=80,648, aged 30-64 years), the 2019 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) (n=7,062, aged 30-65 years), and the 2017-2019 National Survey of Family Growth (n=2,973, aged 30-49 years). Associations between human papillomavirus awareness status (yes, no, don't know) and demographic characteristics were examined with generalized multinomial logistic model to generate adjusted prevalence ratios. Adjusted risk differences were assessed with the t-test for the Don't know answer. RESULTS: A total of 21.8% or >12 million in the study population of women in the BRFSS, 19.5%, (>10.5 million women) in the NHIS, and 9.4% in the National Survey of Family Growth responded don't know to human papillomavirus testing awareness status question. Women aged 40-64 years in BRFSS and 50-65 years in NHIS were more likely to answer don't know than those aged 30-34 (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). Non-Hispanic White women were more likely to answer don't know than non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, and Hispanic women in BRFSS and non-Hispanic Black women in NHIS (adjusted prevalence ratio range=0.60-0.78; p<0.001 and adjusted prevalence ratio=0.72; p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: One in five women was unaware of her human papillomavirus testing status, and awareness was lower among older and non-Hispanic White women. The awareness gap may affect the reliability of estimated human papillomavirus testing population uptake using survey data.

Multilevel Small Area Estimation for County-Level Prevalence of Mammography Use in the United States Using 2018 Data.

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. We aim to generate county-level prevalence estimates for mammography use to examine disparities among counties. Materials and Methods: We used data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 111,902 women) and linked them to county-level data from the American Community Survey. We defined two outcomes: mammography within the past 2 years (current); and mammography 5 or more years ago or never (rarely or never). We poststratified the data with U.S. Census estimated county population counts, ran Monte Carlo simulations, and generated county-level estimates. We aggregated estimates to state and national levels. We validated internal consistency between our model-based and BRFSS state estimates using Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: Nationally, more than three in four women [78.7% (95% confidence interval {CI}: 78.2%-79.2%)] were current with mammography, although with large variations among counties. Also, nationally, about one in nine women [11% (95% CI: 10.8%-11.3%)] rarely or never had a mammogram. County estimates for being current ranged from 60.4% in New Mexico to 86.9% in Hawaii. Rarely or never having a mammogram ranged from 6% in Connecticut to 23.0% in Alaska, and on average, almost one in eight women in all the counties. Internal consistency correlation coefficient tests were ≥0.94. Conclusions: Our analyses identified marked county variations in mammography use across the country among women aged 50-74 years. We generated estimates for all counties, which may be helpful for targeted outreach to increase mammography uptake.

Multilevel small area estimation for county-level prevalence of colorectal cancer screening test use in the United States using 2018 data.

PURPOSE-: National screening estimates mask county-level variations. We aimed to generate county-level colorectal cancer (CRC) screening prevalence estimates for 2018 among adults aged 50-75 years and identify counties with low screening prevalence. METHODS-: We combined individual-level county data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 204,947) with the 2018 American Community Survey county poverty data as a covariate, and the 2018 U.S. Census county population count data to generate county-level prevalence estimates for being current with any CRC screening test, colonoscopy, and home stool blood test. Because BRFSS is a state-based survey, and because some counties did not have samples for analysis, we used correlation coefficients to test internal consistency between model-based and BRFSS state estimates. RESULTS-: Correlation coefficients tests were ≥0.97. Model-based national prevalence for any test was 69.9% (95% CI, 69.5% -70.4%) suggesting 30% are not current with screening test use. State mean estimates ranged from 62.1% in Alaska and Wyoming to 76.6% in Maine and Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 42.2% in Alaska to 80.0% in Florida and Rhode Island. Most tests were performed with colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS-: Estimates across all U.S. counties showed large variations. Estimates may be informative for planning by states and local screening programs.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the United States: Correlates and Time Trends by Type of Test.

BACKGROUND: It is strongly recommended that adults aged 50-75 years be screened for colorectal cancer. Recommended screening options include colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonography, guaiac fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), or the more recently introduced FIT-DNA (FIT in combination with a stool DNA test). Colorectal cancer screening programs can benefit from knowledge of patterns of use by test type and within population subgroups. METHODS: Using 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data, we examined colorectal cancer screening test use for adults aged 50-75 years (N = 10,595). We also examined time trends in colorectal cancer screening test use from 2010-2018. RESULTS: In 2018, an estimated 66.9% of U.S. adults aged 50-75 years had a colorectal cancer screening test within recommended time intervals. However, the prevalence was less than 50% among those aged 50-54 years, those without a usual source of health care, those with no doctor visits in the past year, and those who were uninsured. The test types most commonly used within recommended time intervals were colonoscopy within 10 years (61.1%), FOBT or FIT in the past year (8.8%), and FIT-DNA within 3 years (2.7%). After age-standardization to the 2010 census population, the percentage up-to-date with CRC screening increased from 61.2% in 2015 to 65.3% in 2018, driven by increased use of stool testing, including FIT-DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results show some progress, driven by a modest increase in stool testing. However, colorectal cancer testing remains low in many population subgroups. IMPACT: These results can inform efforts to achieve population colorectal cancer screening goals.

Multilevel Small Area Estimation of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Test in the United States by Age Group: 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended prostate cancer screening for men aged 55 to 69 years who express a preference for being screened after being informed about and understanding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test benefits and risks. USPSTF recommended against screening men aged ≥70 years. We aim to generate county-level prevalence estimates, masked by national and state estimates, to identify counties with high PSA screening prevalence. METHODS: We fitted multilevel logistic regression mixed models for 4 age groups (≥40, 40 to 54, 55 to 69, ≥70 years), using data from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (n = 116,654) and other sources. We evaluated consistency between our model-based state and BRFSS direct state estimates with Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: PSA screening prevalence increased with increasing age groups: 7.7% for men aged 40 to 54 years, 27.2% for men aged 55 to 69 years, and 33.7% among men age ≥70 years, and was largely clustered in the South and Appalachia. Many county estimates among men aged ≥70 years exceeded 40%, especially in the South. Correlation coefficients were 0.94 for men aged ≥40, and ≥0.85 for men aged 40 to 54 years, 55 to 69 years, and ≥70 years. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening was highest among men ≥70 years, for whom it is not recommended, and in the South among all age groups. Screening varied substantially within states. IMPACT: In 2018, on average, more than 1 in 4 men aged 55 to 69 years and 1 in 3 men aged ≥70 years underwent PSA screening in the prior year, suggesting potential overuse among some men.

Geographic Disparities in Late-Stage Breast Cancer Diagnosis Rates and Their Persistence Over Time.

Background: Other than skin cancer, breast cancer is the most common cancer in the United States. Lower uptake of mammography screening is associated with higher rates of late-stage breast cancers. This study aims to show geographic patterns in the United States, where rates of late-stage breast cancer are high and persistent over time, and examines factors associated with these patterns. Materials and Methods: We examined all primary breast cancers diagnosed among all counties in 43 U.S. states with available data. We used spatial cluster analysis to identify hot spots (i.e., spatial clusters with above average late-stage diagnosis rates among counties). Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were compared between persistent hot spots and those counties that were never hot spots. Results: Of the 2,599 counties examined in 43 states, 219 were identified as persistent hot spots. Counties with persistent hot spots (compared with counties that were never hot spots) were located in more deprived areas with worse housing characteristics, lower socioeconomic status, lower levels of health insurance, worse access to mammography, more isolated American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, or Hispanic neighborhoods, and larger income disparity. In addition, persistent hot spots were significantly more likely to be observed among poor, rural, African American, or Hispanic communities, but not among poor, rural, White communities. This analysis includes a broader range of socioeconomic conditions than those included in previous literature. Conclusion: We found geographic disparities in late-stage breast cancer diagnosis rates, with some communities experiencing persistent disparities over time. Our findings can guide public health efforts aimed at reducing disparities in stage of diagnosis for breast cancer.

Multilevel Regression for Small-Area Estimation of Mammography Use in the United States, 2014.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammography for average-risk women aged 50-74 years. County-level information on population measures of mammography use can inform targeted intervention to reduce geographic disparities in mammography use. County-level estimates for mammography use nationwide are rarely presented. METHODS: We used data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; n = 130,289 women), linked it to the American Community Survey poverty data, and fitted multilevel logistic regression models with two outcomes: mammography within the past 2 years (up-to-date), and most recent mammography 5 or more years ago or never (rarely/never). We poststratified the data with U.S. Census population counts to run Monte Carlo simulations. We generated county-level estimates nationally and by urban-rural county classifications. County-level prevalence estimates were aggregated into state and national estimates. We validated internal consistency between our model-based state-specific estimates and urban-rural estimates with BRFSS direct estimates using Spearman correlation coefficients and mean absolute differences. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients were 0.94 or larger. Mean absolute differences for the two outcomes ranged from 0.79 to 1.03. Although 78.45% (95% confidence interval, 77.95%-78.92%) of women nationally were up-to-date with mammography, more than half of the states had counties with >15% of women rarely/never using a mammogram, many in rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: We provided estimates for all U.S. counties and identified marked variations in mammography use. Many states and counties were far from the 2020 target (81.1%). IMPACT: Our results suggest a need for planning and resource allocation on a local level to increase mammography uptake.

Incidence of primary liver cancer in American Indians and Alaska Natives, US, 1999-2009.

PURPOSE: To evaluate liver cancer incidence rates and risk factor correlations in non-Hispanic AI/AN populations for the years 1999-2009. METHODS: We linked data from 51 central cancer registries with the Indian Health Service patient registration databases to improve identification of the AI/AN population. Analyses were restricted to non-Hispanic persons living in Contract Health Service Delivery Area counties. We compared age-adjusted liver cancer incidence rates (per 100,000) for AI/AN to white populations using rate ratios. Annual percent changes (APCs) and trends were estimated using joinpoint regression analyses. We evaluated correlations between regional liver cancer incidence rates and risk factors using Pearson correlation coefficients. RESULTS: AI/AN persons had higher liver cancer incidence rates than whites overall (11.5 versus 4.8, RR = 2.4, 95% CI 2.3-2.6). Rate ratios ranged from 1.6 (Southwest) to 3.4 (Northern Plains and Alaska). We observed an increasing trend among AI/AN persons (APC 1999-2009 = 5%). Rates of distant disease were higher in the AI/AN versus white population for all regions except Alaska. Alcohol use (r = 0.84) and obesity (r = 0.79) were correlated with liver cancer incidence by region. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight disparities in liver cancer incidence between AI/AN and white populations and emphasize opportunities to decrease liver cancer risk factor prevalence.

State Indoor Tanning Laws and Prevalence of Indoor Tanning Among US High School Students, 2009-2015.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between state indoor tanning laws and indoor tanning behavior using nationally representative samples of US high school students younger than 18 years. METHODS: We combined data from the 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 national Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (n = 41 313) to analyze the association between 2 types of state indoor tanning laws (age restriction and parental permission) and the prevalence of indoor tanning during the 12 months before the survey, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and survey year, and stratified by gender. RESULTS: Age restriction laws were associated with a 47% (P < .001) lower indoor tanning prevalence among female high school students. Parental permission laws were not found to be associated with indoor tanning prevalence among either female or male high school students. CONCLUSIONS: Age restriction laws could contribute to less indoor tanning, particularly among female high school students. Such reductions may reduce the health and economic burden of skin cancer.

Multilevel Small-Area Estimation of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.

Background: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening for colorectal cancer for adults ages 50 to 75 years. We generated small-area estimates for being current with colorectal cancer screening to examine sociogeographic differences among states and counties. To our knowledge, nationwide county-level estimates for colorectal cancer screening are rarely presented.Methods: We used county data from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS; n = 251,360 adults), linked it to the American Community Survey poverty data, and fitted multilevel logistic regression models. We post-stratified the data with the U.S. Census population data to run Monte Carlo simulations. We generated county-level screening prevalence estimates nationally and by race/ethnicity, mapped the estimates, and aggregated them into state and national estimates. We evaluated internal consistency of our modeled state-specific estimates with BRFSS direct state estimates using Spearman correlation coefficients.Results: Correlation coefficients were ≥0.95, indicating high internal consistency. We observed substantial variations in current colorectal cancer screening estimates among the states and counties within states. State mean estimates ranged from 58.92% in Wyoming to 75.03% in Massachusetts. County mean estimates ranged from 40.11% in Alaska to 79.76% in Florida. Larger county variations were observed in various race/ethnicity groups.Conclusions: State estimates mask county variations. However, both state and county estimates indicate that the country is far behind the "80% by 2018" target.Impact: County-modeled estimates help identify variation in colorectal cancer screening prevalence in the United States and guide education and enhanced screening efforts in areas of need, including areas without BRFSS direct-estimates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(3); 245-53. ©2018 AACR.

Unequal interactions: Examining the role of patient-centered care in reducing inequitable diffusion of a medical innovation, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.

RATIONALE: Studies of inequities in diffusion of medical innovations rarely consider the role of patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: We used uptake of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine shortly after its licensing to explore the role of patient-centered care. METHODS: Using a longitudinal multi-site survey of US parents and adolescents, we assessed whether patient-centered care ratings might shape racial/ethnic and socioeconomic gaps at two decision points in the HPV vaccination process: (1) Whether a medical provider recommends the vaccine and (2) whether a parent decides to vaccinate. RESULTS: We did not find evidence that the association of patient-centeredness with vaccination varies by parent education. In contrast, parent ratings of providers' patient-centeredness were significantly associated with racial/ethnic disparities in parents' reports of receiving a HPV vaccine recommendation from a provider: Among parents who rate patient-centered care as low, white parents' odds of receiving such a recommendation are 2.6 times higher than black parents' odds, but the racial/ethnic gap nearly disappears when parents report high patient-centeredness. Moderated mediation analyses suggest that patient-centeredness is a major contributor underlying vaccination uptake disparities: Among parents who report low patient-centeredness, white parents' odds of vaccinating their child are 8.1 times higher than black parents' odds, while both groups are equally likely to vaccinate when patient-centeredness is high. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that patient-centered care, which has been a relatively understudied factor in the unequal diffusion of medical innovations, deserves more attention. Efforts to raise HPV vaccination rates should explore why certain patient groups may be less likely to receive recommendations and should support providers to consistently inform all patient groups about vaccination.

Patterns of Prostate-Specific Antigen Test Use in the U.S., 2005-2015.

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations for prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer are placing increasing emphasis on men aged 55-69 years. The goal of the current study is to describe patterns of population-based prostate-specific antigen testing with details about that age group. METHODS: National Health Interview Surveys from 2005 to 2015 were analyzed in 2017 to estimate routine prostate-specific antigen testing in the past year from self-reported data by age group (40-54, 55-69, ≥70 years), and also by risk group, defined as African American men or men with a family history of prostate cancer versus other men. Differences between successive survey years by age and risk groups were assessed by predicted margins and rate ratios with 99% CIs, using logistic regressions. RESULTS: Prostate-specific antigen testing among men aged 55-69 years decreased from a high of 43.1% (95% CI=40.3, 46.1) in 2008 to a low of 32.8% (95% CI=30.8, 34.7) in 2013, with no significant change in 2015 at 33.8% (95% CI=31.3, 36.4). Men aged ≥70 years had consistently high prevalence in all survey years, ranging from 51.1% in 2008 to 36.4% in 2015. African American men, men with a family history of prostate cancer, and other men showed a 5% absolute decrease over time, but this reduction was significant only in other men. CONCLUSIONS: Despite decreases, the absolute change in prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 55-69 years was small (9.3%) over the study period. Men aged ≥70 years, for whom the benefits are unlikely to exceed the harms, continue to have consistently high testing prevalence.

Intentional outdoor tanning in the United States: Results from the 2015 Summer ConsumerStyles survey.

There is limited literature about adults in the United States who usually or always spend time outdoors for the purpose of developing a tan, defined as intentional outdoor tanning. Using data from the 2015 Summer ConsumerStyles, an online cross-sectional survey weighted to the US adult population (n=4,127), we performed unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regressions to examine the associations between demographic characteristics, behaviors, and belief factors related to skin cancer risk and intentional outdoor tanning. Nearly 10% of the study population intentionally tanned outdoors. Outdoor tanning was more prevalent among women (11.4%), non-Hispanic white individuals (11.5%), those aged 18-29years (14.1%), those without a high school diploma (12.7%), and those in the northeast United States (13.2%). The adjusted odds of outdoor tanning were significantly higher among women than men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.04); those with a history of indoor tanning or recent sunburn than those without (AOR 2.61, CI 1.94-3.51; AOR 1.96, CI 1.46-2.63, respectively); those who agreed they looked better with a tan than those who did not (AOR 6.69, CI 3.62-12.35); and those who did not try to protect their skin from the sun when outdoors than those who did (AOR 2.17, CI 1.56-3.04). Adults who engaged in other risky behaviors that expose a person to ultraviolet (UV) radiation were more likely to tan outdoors, further increasing their risk of skin cancer. These findings may guide potential interventions to reduce UV exposure from outdoor tanning.

Prevalence of Indoor Tanning and Association With Sunburn Among Youth in the United States.

Importance: Indoor tanning and sunburns, particularly during adolescence and young adulthood, increase the risk of developing skin cancer. Objective: To examine the trends in the prevalence of indoor tanning and the association between indoor tanning and sunburn among US high school students. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study pooled and examined cross-sectional data from the 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey. During 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the overall response rates were 71%, 71%, 68%, and 60%, respectively, and unweighted sample sizes were 16 410, 15 425, 13 538, and 15 624, respectively. It included nationally representative samples of US high school students. Data were collected during the spring semester (January to June) in each survey cycle beginning February 9, 2009, through June 18, 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of indoor tanning in the past year from 2009 to 2015 and its association with sunburn in 2015. Results: Among high school students in the United States, the prevalence of indoor tanning decreased from 15.6% (95% CI, 13.7%-17.6%) in 2009 to 7.3% (95% CI, 6.0%-8.9%) in 2015. Decreases in indoor tanning were found among male (from 6.7% in 2009 to 4.0% in 2015) and female (from 25.4 % in 2009 to 10.6 % in 2015) students overall, non-Hispanic white (from 21.1 % in 2009 to 9.4% in 2015) and Hispanic (from 8.2% in 2009 to 4.7% in 2015) students overall, and all age groups. Among non-Hispanic white female students, the prevalence decreased from 37.4% (95% CI, 33.6%-41.4%) in 2009 to 15.2% (95% CI, 11.7%-19.5%) in 2015. In 2015, indoor tanning was associated with sunburn in the adjusted model: 82.3% (95% CI, 77.9%-86.0%) of indoor tanners had at least 1 sunburn during the preceding year compared with 53.7% (95% CI, 48.9%-58.4%) of those who did not engage in indoor tanning (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Despite declines in the prevalence of indoor tanning from 2009 to 2015 among high school students nationwide, indoor tanning remains commonplace among certain subgroups, especially non-Hispanic white female students. Three-quarters of those who engaged in indoor tanning had experienced at least 1 sunburn. Efforts by the public health and medical communities are needed to further reduce the prevalence of indoor tanning and sunburn and thus prevent future cases of skin cancer.

The association between beliefs about vitamin D and skin cancer risk-related behaviors.

Major health organizations recommend obtaining most of one's vitamin D through dietary sources rather than from sun exposure, given the link between sun exposure and increased skin cancer risk. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between beliefs about vitamin D and skin cancer risk-related behaviors, a topic on which research is limited. We analyzed cross-sectional online survey data collected in the summer of 2015 from 4127U.S. adults aged 18years and older. Overall, 19.7% of adults believed that sun protection would put them at risk of not getting enough vitamin D. However, less than half (43.1%) thought they could get enough vitamin D from dietary sources. Individuals with this belief were more likely to protect their skin when spending time outdoors (71.3%) compared with those who were neutral or disagreed (56.5%; P<0.001). Only 5.1% of adults believed that indoor tanning is an effective way to get vitamin D. Compared to those who disagreed or were neutral, those who thought it was effective were more likely to be outdoor tanners (45.1% vs. 28.5%; P<0.001) and indoor tanners (13.8% vs 1.9%; P<0.001). Beliefs about vitamin D were associated with skin cancer risk-related behaviors. Including information about vitamin D in skin cancer prevention messages may be beneficial.

Annual Economic Burden of Productivity Losses Among Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although adult survivors of childhood cancers have poorer health and greater health limitations than other adults, substantial gaps remain in understanding the economic consequences of surviving childhood cancer. Therefore, we estimated the economic burden of productivity losses among adult survivors of childhood cancers. METHODS: We examined health status, functional limitations, and productivity loss among adult survivors of childhood cancers (n = 239) diagnosed at ≤14 years of age compared with adults without a history of cancer (n = 304 265) by using the 2004-2014 National Health Interview Survey. We estimated economic burden using the productivity loss from health-related unemployment, missed work days, missed household productivity, and multivariable regression models controlling for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, comorbidities, and survey year. RESULTS: Childhood cancer survivorship is associated with a substantial economic burden. Adult survivors of childhood cancers are more likely to be in poorer health, need assistance with personal care and routine needs, have work limitations, be unable to work because of health, miss more days of work, and have greater household productivity loss compared with adults without a history of cancer (all P < .05). The annual productivity loss for adult survivors of childhood cancer is $8169 per person compared with $3083 per person for individuals without a history of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of efforts to reduce the health and economic burden among adult survivors of childhood cancer. In addition, this study highlights the potential productivity losses that could be avoided during adulthood from the prevention of childhood cancer in the United States.

Multilevel Small-Area Estimation of Multiple Cigarette Smoking Status Categories Using the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

BACKGROUND: Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death; however, small-area estimates for detailed smoking status are limited. We developed multilevel small-area estimate mixed models to generate county-level estimates for six smoking status categories: current, some days, every day, former, ever, and never. METHOD: Using 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (our sample size = 405,233 persons), we constructed and fitted a series of multilevel logistic regression models and applied them to the U.S. Census population to generate county-level prevalence estimates. We mapped the estimates by sex and aggregated them into state and national estimates. We conducted comparisons for internal consistency with BRFSS states' estimates using Pearson correlation coefficients, and external validation with the 2012 National Health Interview Survey current smoking prevalence. RESULTS: Correlation coefficients ranged from 0.908 to 0.982, indicating high internal consistency. External validation indicated complete agreement (prevalence = 18.06%). We found large variations in current and former smoking status between and within states and by sex. County prevalence of former smokers was highest among men in the Northeast, North, and West. Utah consistently had the lowest smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Our models, which include demographic and geographic characteristics, provide reliable estimates that can be applied to multiple category outcomes and any demographic group. County and state estimates may help understand the variation in smoking prevalence in the United States and provide information for control and prevention. IMPACT: Detailed county and state smoking category estimates can help identify areas in need of tobacco control and prevention and potentially allow planning for health care. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(10); 1402-10. ©2016 AACR.