Main Page


Revision as of 08:18, 30 January 2018 by Air29sex (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

2013 (after they constitute about 15 of the population) than they had in 1999 (when everyday smoking prevalence was about 30 ). While this consistency might have a thing to do with what in an international context could be characterised as Norwegian affluence, additionally, it indicates that the growing "marginalisation of smokers" amongst the public (which is what we've studied here, and which we only obtain minor help for) can be a distinctive sort of question than the overrepresentation of smokers in marginal problem groups (which we've not studied right here). The hardening hypothesis has also been questioned, and also a current study of 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 rate on the current study raises concerns concerning the representativeness with the sample, andS ?and Kvaavik BMC Public Overall health (2016) 16:Web page 11 ofthe validity with the results. The wide selection of societal problems covered in the survey, of which some could seem title= journal.pcbi.1005422 complicated to citizens who don't stick to politics closely, as well because the sheer magnitude on the questionnaire, could possibly indicate a reduce response rate amongst lesser privileged groupings in society. If the relative size of lesser privileged groups increases much more amongst smokers than non-smokers over time, and these subjects usually do not respond to surveys to a greater extent, the non-response in diverse smoking groups might adjust differently more than time and introduce a higher non-response bias in 2013 than in previous years, such a bias have to be regarded as when interpreting the findings. Having said that, the trends found in every day smoking in this study resemble those identified in other research with higher response rates, so the analytical sample in the existing study would seem to be 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), recommend that the sample is largely representative in terms of public overall health indicators [30, 47, 48]. Even though the sample, like any household survey, is probably to underestimate the size of your most marginalised smokers (homeless people today, drug addicts, men and women in prisons), it can be significantly less likely that this underestimation threatens the validity with the study.Weighted datausing un-weighted information (around two percentage points for all years combined), otherwise the outcomes have been equivalent utilizing the two unique strategies. The similarities in the benefits from weighted and un-weighted information in the existing study indicate that our findings are valid.Self-reportingAll components used in the existing analyses have been obtained by self-reporting, which can be vulnerable to recall bias and social desirability [63?5]. Desirable positions and healthpromoting behaviour may well be overestimated whilst unwanted positions/situations and unhealthy behaviours may possibly be underestimated. The potential for more than and underestimation may differ within the distinctive smoking groups, and one will have to keep in mind the possibility of incorrect estimates of associations.Weighting information to increase the representativeness of the study sample may possibly cause some difficulties. Within the present study, weighting was primarily based on gender, age and geographic area of the common Norwegian population 15 years of age and older.

Personal tools