Main Page

From HFA-PEDIA

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
-
While this consistency might have a thing to perform with what in an international context might be characterised as Norwegian affluence, in addition, it indicates that the increasing "marginalisation of smokers" among the public (which can be what we've got studied right here, and which we only discover minor help for) is actually a distinct sort of query than the overrepresentation of smokers in marginal issue groups (which we have not studied right here). The hardening hypothesis has also been questioned, and a recent study of [https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.242 title= brb3.242] 32 countries (US and EU) suggests that the remaining smoker population is in fact softening, not hardening [59].Limitations Response rateThe low response price with the current study raises concerns regarding the representativeness from the sample, andS ?and Kvaavik BMC Public Wellness (2016) 16:Page 11 ofthe validity with the results. The wide range of societal issues covered inside the survey, of which some could possibly appear [https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005422 title= journal.pcbi.1005422] complicated to citizens who don't adhere to politics closely, also because the sheer magnitude on the questionnaire, could indicate a lower response rate amongst lesser privileged groupings in society. When the relative size of lesser privileged groups increases additional among smokers than non-smokers more than time, and these subjects don't respond to surveys to a higher extent, the non-response in various smoking groups may well adjust differently more than time and introduce a higher non-response bias in 2013 than in prior years, such a bias should be regarded as when interpreting the findings. Nevertheless, the trends discovered in daily smoking within this study resemble those identified in other studies with larger response rates, so the analytical sample in the current study would appear to become reasonably unbiased. Also, comparisons from the sample applied right here with other data sets with regard to other indicators than smoking status (including housing and BMI), suggest that the sample is largely representative in relation to public well being indicators [30, 47, 48]. Even if the sample, like any household survey, is most likely to underestimate the size on the most marginalised smokers (homeless individuals, drug addicts, individuals in prisons), it is significantly less most likely that this underestimation threatens the validity with the study.Weighted datausing un-weighted data (around two percentage points for all years combined), otherwise the outcomes were related using the two diverse strategies. The similarities from the results from weighted and un-weighted information within the existing study indicate that our findings are valid.Self-reportingAll elements applied inside the existing analyses were obtained by self-reporting, which is vulnerable to recall bias and social desirability [63?5]. Desirable positions and [http://hsepeoplejobs.com/members/packet0hour/activity/547304/ http://hsepeoplejobs.com/members/packet0hour/activity/547304/] healthpromoting behaviour could be overestimated when undesirable positions/situations and unhealthy behaviours may be underestimated. The potential for over and underestimation may well differ inside the distinct smoking groups, and a single must keep in mind the possibility of incorrect estimates of associations.Weighting information to improve the representativeness on the study sample may possibly result in some troubles. Within the current study, weighting was based on gender, age and geographic area from the general Norwegian population 15 years of age and older. The independent and dependent variables employed in our analyses weren't utilised within the weighting, as appropriate levels of material issues and lifestyle components within the population are.
+
2008;17: 248?five. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.024265. four. Giskes K, Kunst AE, Benach J, Borrell C, Costa G, Dahl E, et al. Trends in smoking behaviour among 1985 and 2000 in nine European nations by education. J Epidemiol Community Well being. 2005;59:395?01. doi:ten.1136/ jech.2004.025684. five. Kanjilal S, Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, Zhang P, Nelson DE, Mensah G, et al. Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in four significant risk elements for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971?002. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:2348?five. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.21.2348. 6. Rognerud M, Strand BH, N s ? Sosial ulikhet i helse: en faktarapport. Oslo: Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt; 2007. 7. Sund ER, Krokstad S. Social inequalities in wellness - [https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005422 title= journal.pcbi.1005422] a summary. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Health; 2007. 8. Torgersen TP, Gj er O, Stigen OT. The challenge in the gradient. Oslo: Directorate of Health and Social Affairs; 2005. 9. Galobardes B, Costanza MC, Bernstein MS, Delhumeau C, Morabia A. Trends in risk factors for lifestyle-related illnesses by socioeconomic position in Geneva, Switzerland, 1993?000: health inequalities persist. Am J Public Wellness. 2003;93:1302?. ten. Frohlich KL, Poland B, [http://www.musicpella.com/members/cement47toilet/activity/599033/ http://www.musicpella.com/members/cement47toilet/activity/599033/] Mykhalovskiy E, Alexander S, Maule C. Tobacco control and the inequitable socio-economic distribution of smoking: smokers' discourses and implications for tobacco manage. Crit Public Well being. 2010;20:35?6. doi:10.1080/09581590802687358. 11. Marsh A, McKay S. Poor smokers. London: Policy Research Institute; 1994. 12. Pearce J, Barnett R, Moon G. Sociospatial inequalities in health-related behaviours: Pathways linking place and smoking. Prog Hum Geogr. 2012;36: 3?4. doi:10.1177/0309132511402710. 13. Dowler E. Inequalities in diet program and physical activity in Europe. Public Wellness Nutr. 2001;four:701?. 14. Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Martikainen P, Lahelma E. Socioeconomic Position and Self-Rated Well being: The Contribution of Childhood Socioeconomic Situations, Adult Socioeconomic Status, and Material Resources. Am J Public Overall health. 2005;95:1403?. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004. 047969. 15. Thornton LE, Bentley RJ, Kavanagh AM. Individual and area-level socioeconomic associations with quick food purchasing. J Epidemiol Community Well being. 2011;65:873?0. doi:ten.1136/jech.2009.099614. 16. Poland B, Frohlich K, Haines RJ, Mykhalovskiy E, Rock M, Sparks R. The social context of smoking: the following frontier in tobacco handle? Tob Handle. 2006; 15:59?three. doi:ten.1136/tc.2004.009886. 17. Hiscock R, Bauld L, Amos A, Platt S. Smoking and socioeconomic status in England: the rise from the by no means smoker along with the disadvantaged smoker. J Public Overall health. 2012;34:390?. doi:ten.1093/pubmed/fds012. 18. Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, Poland BD, Haines-Saah R, Johnson J. Producing the socially marginalised youth smoker: the role of tobacco manage. Sociol Overall health Illn. 2012;34:978?three. doi:ten.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01449.x. [https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.638589 title= 10508619.2011.638589] 19. Passey M, Bonevski B. The importance of tobacco research focusing on marginalized groups. Addiction. 2014;109:1049?1. doi:ten.1111/add.12548. 20. Lembke A, Humphreys K. A contact to incorporate men and women with mental illness and substance use problems alongside `regular' smokers in smoking cessation analysis. Tob Control.

Revision as of 05:06, 25 January 2018

2008;17: 248?five. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.024265. four. Giskes K, Kunst AE, Benach J, Borrell C, Costa G, Dahl E, et al. Trends in smoking behaviour among 1985 and 2000 in nine European nations by education. J Epidemiol Community Well being. 2005;59:395?01. doi:ten.1136/ jech.2004.025684. five. Kanjilal S, Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, Zhang P, Nelson DE, Mensah G, et al. Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in four significant risk elements for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971?002. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:2348?five. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.21.2348. 6. Rognerud M, Strand BH, N s ? Sosial ulikhet i helse: en faktarapport. Oslo: Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt; 2007. 7. Sund ER, Krokstad S. Social inequalities in wellness - title= journal.pcbi.1005422 a summary. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Health; 2007. 8. Torgersen TP, Gj er O, Stigen OT. The challenge in the gradient. Oslo: Directorate of Health and Social Affairs; 2005. 9. Galobardes B, Costanza MC, Bernstein MS, Delhumeau C, Morabia A. Trends in risk factors for lifestyle-related illnesses by socioeconomic position in Geneva, Switzerland, 1993?000: health inequalities persist. Am J Public Wellness. 2003;93:1302?. ten. Frohlich KL, Poland B, http://www.musicpella.com/members/cement47toilet/activity/599033/ Mykhalovskiy E, Alexander S, Maule C. Tobacco control and the inequitable socio-economic distribution of smoking: smokers' discourses and implications for tobacco manage. Crit Public Well being. 2010;20:35?6. doi:10.1080/09581590802687358. 11. Marsh A, McKay S. Poor smokers. London: Policy Research Institute; 1994. 12. Pearce J, Barnett R, Moon G. Sociospatial inequalities in health-related behaviours: Pathways linking place and smoking. Prog Hum Geogr. 2012;36: 3?4. doi:10.1177/0309132511402710. 13. Dowler E. Inequalities in diet program and physical activity in Europe. Public Wellness Nutr. 2001;four:701?. 14. Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Martikainen P, Lahelma E. Socioeconomic Position and Self-Rated Well being: The Contribution of Childhood Socioeconomic Situations, Adult Socioeconomic Status, and Material Resources. Am J Public Overall health. 2005;95:1403?. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004. 047969. 15. Thornton LE, Bentley RJ, Kavanagh AM. Individual and area-level socioeconomic associations with quick food purchasing. J Epidemiol Community Well being. 2011;65:873?0. doi:ten.1136/jech.2009.099614. 16. Poland B, Frohlich K, Haines RJ, Mykhalovskiy E, Rock M, Sparks R. The social context of smoking: the following frontier in tobacco handle? Tob Handle. 2006; 15:59?three. doi:ten.1136/tc.2004.009886. 17. Hiscock R, Bauld L, Amos A, Platt S. Smoking and socioeconomic status in England: the rise from the by no means smoker along with the disadvantaged smoker. J Public Overall health. 2012;34:390?. doi:ten.1093/pubmed/fds012. 18. Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, Poland BD, Haines-Saah R, Johnson J. Producing the socially marginalised youth smoker: the role of tobacco manage. Sociol Overall health Illn. 2012;34:978?three. doi:ten.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01449.x. title= 10508619.2011.638589 19. Passey M, Bonevski B. The importance of tobacco research focusing on marginalized groups. Addiction. 2014;109:1049?1. doi:ten.1111/add.12548. 20. Lembke A, Humphreys K. A contact to incorporate men and women with mental illness and substance use problems alongside `regular' smokers in smoking cessation analysis. Tob Control.

Personal tools