Main Page

From HFA-PEDIA

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
-
2013 (once they constitute about 15 on the population) than they had in
+
Impact of nationwide tobacco control policies on smoking cessation in high and low educated groups in 18 European countries. Tob Control. 2008;17: 248?five. 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 countries by education. J Epidemiol Neighborhood Wellness. 2005;59:395?01. doi:10.1136/ jech.2004.025684. 5. Kanjilal S, Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, Zhang P, Nelson DE, Mensah G, et al. Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in four important risk aspects for cardiovascular disease amongst US adults, 1971?002. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:2348?five. doi:ten.1001/archinte.166.21.2348. six. 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 Wellness; 2007. eight. Torgersen TP, Gj er O, Stigen OT. The challenge of your gradient. Oslo: Directorate of Health and Social Affairs; 2005. 9. Galobardes B, Costanza MC, Bernstein MS, Delhumeau C, Morabia A. Trends in threat variables for lifestyle-related ailments by socioeconomic position in Geneva, Switzerland, 1993?000: overall health inequalities persist. Am J Public Overall health. 2003;93:1302?. ten. Frohlich KL, Poland B, Mykhalovskiy E, Alexander S, Maule C. Tobacco control along with the inequitable socio-economic distribution of smoking: smokers' discourses and implications for tobacco control. Crit Public Well being. 2010;20:35?six. doi:ten.1080/09581590802687358. 11. Marsh A, McKay S. Poor smokers. London: Policy Studies 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: three?four. doi:10.1177/0309132511402710. 2001;four:701?. 14. Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Martikainen P, Lahelma E. Socioeconomic Position and [http://campuscrimes.tv/members/quiver66closet/activity/706986/ http://campuscrimes.tv/members/quiver66closet/activity/706986/] Self-Rated Wellness: The Contribution of Childhood Socioeconomic Circumstances, Adult Socioeconomic Status, and Material Resources. Am J Public Wellness. 2005;95:1403?. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004. 047969. 15. Thornton LE, Bentley RJ, Kavanagh AM. Individual and area-level socioeconomic associations with fast meals getting. J Epidemiol Community Overall health. 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 subsequent frontier in tobacco control? Tob Handle. 2006; 15:59?3. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009886. 17. Hiscock R, Bauld L, Amos A, Platt S. Smoking and socioeconomic status in England: the rise from the in no way smoker and also the disadvantaged smoker. J Public Wellness. 2012;34:390?. doi:ten.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 manage. Sociol Wellness Illn. 2012;34:978?3. 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 analysis focusing on marginalized groups. Addiction. 2014;109:1049?1. doi:10.1111/add.12548. 20. Lembke A, Humphreys K. A call to incorporate persons with mental illness and substance use problems alongside `regular' smokers in smoking cessation research. Tob Control. 2015.
-
2013 (after they constitute about 15 of the population) than they had in 1999 (when each day smoking prevalence was about 30 ). Although this consistency may have some thing to complete with what in an international context could be characterised as Norwegian affluence, it also indicates that the expanding "marginalisation of smokers" among the public (which can be what we have studied here, and which we only uncover minor assistance for) is actually a various kind of question than the overrepresentation of smokers in marginal trouble groups (which we've got not studied right here). The hardening hypothesis has also been questioned, along with a current study of [https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/brb3.242 title= brb3.242] 32 nations (US and EU) suggests that the remaining smoker population is actually softening, not hardening [59].Limitations Response rateThe low response price with the present study raises concerns about the representativeness from the sample, andS ?and Kvaavik BMC Public Wellness (2016) 16:Web page 11 ofthe validity of the final results. The wide range of societal troubles covered in the survey, of which some may well seem [https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005422 title= journal.pcbi.1005422] complex to citizens who don't adhere to politics closely, too because the sheer magnitude of the questionnaire, could indicate a decrease response rate amongst lesser privileged groupings in society. If the relative size of lesser privileged groups increases far more amongst smokers than non-smokers more than time, and these subjects usually do not respond to surveys to a greater extent, the non-response in diverse smoking groups may transform differently over time and introduce a higher non-response bias in 2013 than in preceding years, such a bias must be deemed when interpreting the findings. Nevertheless, the trends located in day-to-day smoking within this study resemble these located in other studies with greater response rates, so the analytical sample in the present study would appear to become reasonably unbiased. Also, comparisons with the sample applied right here with other information sets with regard to other indicators than smoking status (such as housing and BMI), recommend that the sample is largely representative with regards to public overall health indicators [30, 47, 48]. Even though the sample, like any household survey, is most likely to underestimate the size of the most marginalised smokers (homeless persons, drug addicts, men and women in prisons), it is actually less probably that this underestimation threatens the validity with the study.Weighted datausing [http://www.tongji.org/members/wolf3light/activity/655009/ http://www.tongji.org/members/wolf3light/activity/655009/] un-weighted information (around two percentage points for all years combined), otherwise the outcomes were comparable working with the two distinct procedures. The similarities in the final results from weighted and un-weighted data inside the existing study indicate that our findings are valid.Self-reportingAll variables made use of inside the present analyses have been obtained by self-reporting, which is vulnerable to recall bias and social desirability [63?5]. Desirable positions and healthpromoting behaviour could be overestimated whilst undesirable positions/situations and unhealthy behaviours may possibly be underestimated. The prospective for over and underestimation might differ within the diverse smoking groups, and a single must bear in mind the possibility of incorrect estimates of associations.Weighting information to increase the representativeness on the study sample could trigger some complications.
+

Revision as of 02:16, 3 February 2018

Impact of nationwide tobacco control policies on smoking cessation in high and low educated groups in 18 European countries. Tob Control. 2008;17: 248?five. 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 countries by education. J Epidemiol Neighborhood Wellness. 2005;59:395?01. doi:10.1136/ jech.2004.025684. 5. Kanjilal S, Gregg EW, Cheng YJ, Zhang P, Nelson DE, Mensah G, et al. Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in four important risk aspects for cardiovascular disease amongst US adults, 1971?002. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166:2348?five. doi:ten.1001/archinte.166.21.2348. six. 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 Wellness; 2007. eight. Torgersen TP, Gj er O, Stigen OT. The challenge of your gradient. Oslo: Directorate of Health and Social Affairs; 2005. 9. Galobardes B, Costanza MC, Bernstein MS, Delhumeau C, Morabia A. Trends in threat variables for lifestyle-related ailments by socioeconomic position in Geneva, Switzerland, 1993?000: overall health inequalities persist. Am J Public Overall health. 2003;93:1302?. ten. Frohlich KL, Poland B, Mykhalovskiy E, Alexander S, Maule C. Tobacco control along with the inequitable socio-economic distribution of smoking: smokers' discourses and implications for tobacco control. Crit Public Well being. 2010;20:35?six. doi:ten.1080/09581590802687358. 11. Marsh A, McKay S. Poor smokers. London: Policy Studies 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: three?four. doi:10.1177/0309132511402710. 2001;four:701?. 14. Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Martikainen P, Lahelma E. Socioeconomic Position and http://campuscrimes.tv/members/quiver66closet/activity/706986/ Self-Rated Wellness: The Contribution of Childhood Socioeconomic Circumstances, Adult Socioeconomic Status, and Material Resources. Am J Public Wellness. 2005;95:1403?. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004. 047969. 15. Thornton LE, Bentley RJ, Kavanagh AM. Individual and area-level socioeconomic associations with fast meals getting. J Epidemiol Community Overall health. 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 subsequent frontier in tobacco control? Tob Handle. 2006; 15:59?3. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009886. 17. Hiscock R, Bauld L, Amos A, Platt S. Smoking and socioeconomic status in England: the rise from the in no way smoker and also the disadvantaged smoker. J Public Wellness. 2012;34:390?. doi:ten.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 manage. Sociol Wellness Illn. 2012;34:978?3. doi:ten.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01449.x. title= 10508619.2011.638589 19. Passey M, Bonevski B. The importance of tobacco analysis focusing on marginalized groups. Addiction. 2014;109:1049?1. doi:10.1111/add.12548. 20. Lembke A, Humphreys K. A call to incorporate persons with mental illness and substance use problems alongside `regular' smokers in smoking cessation research. Tob Control. 2015.

Personal tools