Main Page


Revision as of 13:13, 26 January 2018 by Flag83toilet (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

2013 (when they constitute about 15 of your population) than they had in 1999 (when day-to-day smoking prevalence was about 30 ). While this consistency might have anything to do with what in an international context might be characterised as Norwegian affluence, in addition, it indicates that the increasing "marginalisation of smokers" amongst the public (that is what we've got studied here, and which we only uncover minor help for) can be a distinctive kind of query than the overrepresentation of smokers in marginal issue groups (which we've got not studied right here). The hardening hypothesis has also been questioned, and also a recent study of 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 in the present study raises concerns regarding the representativeness with the sample, andS ?and Kvaavik BMC Public Health (2016) 16:Page 11 ofthe validity in the final results. The wide array of societal difficulties covered in the survey, of which some may possibly seem title= journal.pcbi.1005422 complex to citizens who usually do not stick to politics closely, also as the sheer magnitude from the questionnaire, may indicate a lower response rate amongst lesser privileged groupings in society. In the event the relative size of lesser privileged groups increases extra 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 different smoking groups may change differently more than time and introduce a higher non-response bias in 2013 than in earlier years, such a bias should be considered when interpreting the findings. However, the trends discovered in daily smoking in this study resemble those identified in other research with higher response prices, so the analytical sample inside the current study would seem to become reasonably unbiased. Also, comparisons from the sample applied right here with other data sets with regard to other indicators than smoking status (which include housing and BMI), recommend that the sample is largely representative in terms of public overall health indicators [30, 47, 48]. Even if the sample, like any household survey, is likely to underestimate the size in the most marginalised smokers (homeless folks, drug addicts, persons in prisons), it's significantly less most likely that this underestimation threatens the validity in the study.Weighted datausing un-weighted information (around two percentage points for all years combined), otherwise the results have been comparable working with the two different methods. The similarities on the final results from weighted and un-weighted data within the existing study indicate that our findings are valid.Self-reportingAll things applied in the present analyses had been obtained by self-reporting, that is vulnerable to recall bias and social desirability [63?5]. Desirable positions and healthpromoting behaviour may possibly be overestimated while unwanted positions/situations and unhealthy behaviours might be underestimated. The prospective for over and underestimation may differ within the distinct smoking groups, and a single need to keep in mind the possibility of incorrect estimates of associations.Weighting data to increase the representativeness with the study sample could trigger some challenges. Within the present study, weighting was primarily based on gender, age and geographic area from the common Norwegian population 15 years of age and older.

Personal tools