Main Page

From HFA-PEDIA

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
-
Although this consistency might have something to perform with what in an international context might be characterised as Norwegian affluence, in addition, it indicates that the expanding "marginalisation of smokers" among the public (which is what we've studied here, and which we only uncover minor help for) is really a various sort of query than the overrepresentation of smokers in marginal trouble groups (which we've got not studied here). The hardening hypothesis has also been questioned, as well as 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 the truth is softening, not hardening [59].Limitations Response rateThe low response price on the current study raises concerns about the representativeness of the sample, andS ?and Kvaavik BMC Public Health (2016) 16:Web page 11 ofthe validity of your results. The wide selection of societal challenges covered inside the survey, of which some may appear [https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005422 title= journal.pcbi.1005422] complicated to citizens who usually do not adhere to politics closely, as well because the sheer magnitude on the questionnaire, may indicate a decrease response rate among lesser privileged groupings in society. If the relative size of lesser privileged groups increases much more among smokers than non-smokers over time, and these subjects do not respond to surveys to a higher extent, the non-response in distinctive smoking groups may well modify differently more than time and introduce a greater non-response bias in 2013 than in preceding years, such a bias should be viewed as when interpreting the findings. However, the trends discovered in daily smoking in this study resemble these discovered in other studies with larger response rates, so the analytical sample within the existing study would seem to become reasonably unbiased. Also, comparisons from the sample applied here with other information sets with regard to other indicators than smoking status (for instance housing and BMI), recommend that the sample is largely representative with regards to public overall health indicators [30, 47, 48]. Even when the sample, like any household survey, is [http://girlisus.com/members/thumb33boot/activity/145937/ http://girlisus.com/members/thumb33boot/activity/145937/] probably to underestimate the size in the most marginalised smokers (homeless men and women, drug addicts, people today in prisons), it is significantly less most likely that this underestimation threatens the validity in the study.Weighted datausing un-weighted data (around two percentage points for all years combined), otherwise the results were similar utilizing the two unique techniques. The similarities of the outcomes from weighted and un-weighted data within the current study indicate that our findings are valid.Self-reportingAll components utilized inside the present analyses had been obtained by self-reporting, which is vulnerable to recall bias and social desirability [63?5]. Desirable positions and healthpromoting behaviour may well be overestimated even though unwanted positions/situations and unhealthy behaviours may possibly be underestimated. The prospective for over and underestimation could differ in the distinctive smoking groups, and 1 will have to bear in mind the possibility of incorrect estimates of associations.Weighting data to increase the representativeness in the study sample may trigger some challenges. Within the present study, weighting was based on gender, age and geographic area on the general Norwegian population 15 years of age and older. The independent and dependent variables employed in our analyses weren't used inside the weighting, as correct levels of material issues and life-style things inside the population are.
+
Onal population survey. BMC Public Wellness. 2012;12:303. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-303. three. Schaap
 +
Onal population survey. BMC Public Wellness. 2012;12:303. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-303. three. Schaap MM, Kunst AE, Leinsalu M, Regidor E, Ekholm O, Dzurova D, et al. Impact of nationwide tobacco handle policies on smoking cessation in higher and low educated groups in 18 European nations. Tob Manage. 2008;17: 248?5. doi:ten.1136/tc.2007.024265. 4. Giskes K, Kunst AE, Benach J, Borrell C, Costa G, Dahl E, et al. Trends in smoking behaviour between 1985 and 2000 in nine European nations by education. J Epidemiol Neighborhood Overall health. 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 major threat components for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971?002. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:2348?five. Rognerud M, Strand BH, N s ? Sosial ulikhet i helse: en faktarapport. Oslo: Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt; 2007. 7. Sund ER, Krokstad S. Social inequalities in overall health - [https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005422 title= journal.pcbi.1005422] a summary. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Well being; 2007. eight. Torgersen TP, Gj er O, Stigen OT. The challenge in the gradient. Oslo: Directorate of Wellness and Social Affairs; 2005. 9. Galobardes B, Costanza MC, Bernstein MS, Delhumeau C, Morabia A. Trends in threat components for lifestyle-related ailments by socioeconomic position in Geneva, Switzerland, 1993?000: wellness inequalities persist. Am J Public Overall health. 2003;93:1302?. ten. Frohlich KL, Poland B, Mykhalovskiy E, Alexander S, Maule C. Tobacco control plus the inequitable socio-economic distribution of smoking: smokers' discourses and implications for tobacco control. 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 spot and smoking. Prog Hum Geogr. 2012;36: 3?4. doi:10.1177/0309132511402710. 13. Dowler E. Inequalities in eating plan and physical activity in Europe. Public Wellness Nutr. 2001;4:701?. 14. Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Martikainen P, Lahelma E. Socioeconomic Position and Self-Rated Well being: The Contribution of Childhood Socioeconomic Circumstances, Adult Socioeconomic Status, and Material Resources. Am J Public Well being. 2005;95:1403?. doi:ten.2105/ajph.2004. 047969. 15. Thornton LE, Bentley RJ, Kavanagh AM. Individual and area-level socioeconomic associations with fast meals getting. J Epidemiol Neighborhood Health. 2011;65:873?0. doi:ten.1136/jech.2009.[http://revolusimental.com/members/quiver51ton/activity/380301/ http://revolusimental.com/members/quiver51ton/activity/380301/] 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 Manage. 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 of your under no circumstances smoker and the disadvantaged smoker. J Public Overall health. 2012;34:390?. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fds012. 18. Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, Poland BD, Haines-Saah R, Johnson J. Building the socially marginalised youth smoker: the function of tobacco control. Sociol Health Illn. 2012;34:978?three. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01449.x.

Revision as of 07:54, 1 February 2018

Onal population survey. BMC Public Wellness. 2012;12:303. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-303. three. Schaap Onal population survey. BMC Public Wellness. 2012;12:303. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-303. three. Schaap MM, Kunst AE, Leinsalu M, Regidor E, Ekholm O, Dzurova D, et al. Impact of nationwide tobacco handle policies on smoking cessation in higher and low educated groups in 18 European nations. Tob Manage. 2008;17: 248?5. doi:ten.1136/tc.2007.024265. 4. Giskes K, Kunst AE, Benach J, Borrell C, Costa G, Dahl E, et al. Trends in smoking behaviour between 1985 and 2000 in nine European nations by education. J Epidemiol Neighborhood Overall health. 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 major threat components for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971?002. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:2348?five. Rognerud M, Strand BH, N s ? Sosial ulikhet i helse: en faktarapport. Oslo: Nasjonalt folkehelseinstitutt; 2007. 7. Sund ER, Krokstad S. Social inequalities in overall health - title= journal.pcbi.1005422 a summary. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate of Well being; 2007. eight. Torgersen TP, Gj er O, Stigen OT. The challenge in the gradient. Oslo: Directorate of Wellness and Social Affairs; 2005. 9. Galobardes B, Costanza MC, Bernstein MS, Delhumeau C, Morabia A. Trends in threat components for lifestyle-related ailments by socioeconomic position in Geneva, Switzerland, 1993?000: wellness inequalities persist. Am J Public Overall health. 2003;93:1302?. ten. Frohlich KL, Poland B, Mykhalovskiy E, Alexander S, Maule C. Tobacco control plus the inequitable socio-economic distribution of smoking: smokers' discourses and implications for tobacco control. 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 spot and smoking. Prog Hum Geogr. 2012;36: 3?4. doi:10.1177/0309132511402710. 13. Dowler E. Inequalities in eating plan and physical activity in Europe. Public Wellness Nutr. 2001;4:701?. 14. Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Martikainen P, Lahelma E. Socioeconomic Position and Self-Rated Well being: The Contribution of Childhood Socioeconomic Circumstances, Adult Socioeconomic Status, and Material Resources. Am J Public Well being. 2005;95:1403?. doi:ten.2105/ajph.2004. 047969. 15. Thornton LE, Bentley RJ, Kavanagh AM. Individual and area-level socioeconomic associations with fast meals getting. J Epidemiol Neighborhood Health. 2011;65:873?0. doi:ten.1136/jech.2009.http://revolusimental.com/members/quiver51ton/activity/380301/ 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 Manage. 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 of your under no circumstances smoker and the disadvantaged smoker. J Public Overall health. 2012;34:390?. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fds012. 18. Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, Poland BD, Haines-Saah R, Johnson J. Building the socially marginalised youth smoker: the function of tobacco control. Sociol Health Illn. 2012;34:978?three. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01449.x.

Personal tools