Main Page


Revision as of 03:42, 31 January 2018 by Pink9sled (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

2013 (when they constitute about 15 with the population) than they had in 1999 (when every day smoking prevalence was about 30 ). When this consistency may have one thing to do with what in an international context might be characterised as Norwegian affluence, it also indicates that the developing "marginalisation of smokers" among the public (that is what we have studied right here, and which we only uncover minor assistance for) is often a different sort of query than the overrepresentation of smokers in marginal dilemma groups (which we've got not studied here). The hardening hypothesis has also been questioned, and a current study of title= brb3.242 32 nations (US and EU) suggests that the remaining smoker population is in reality softening, not hardening [59].Limitations Response rateThe low response rate of your current study raises issues concerning the representativeness from the sample, andS ?and Kvaavik BMC Public Well being (2016) 16:Page 11 ofthe validity in the results. The wide range of societal concerns covered inside the survey, of which some may appear title= journal.pcbi.1005422 complex to citizens who do not adhere to politics closely, as well because the sheer magnitude from the questionnaire, could indicate a decrease response rate among lesser privileged groupings in society. When the relative size of lesser privileged groups increases a lot more among smokers than non-smokers more than time, and these subjects usually do not respond to surveys to a greater extent, the non-response in distinct smoking groups might change differently more than time and introduce a higher non-response bias in 2013 than in previous years, such a bias has to be thought of when interpreting the findings. Even so, the trends found in every day smoking within this study resemble those discovered in other studies with greater response prices, so the analytical sample inside the present study would seem to become reasonably unbiased. Also, comparisons of your sample applied here with other data sets with regard to other indicators than smoking status (including housing and BMI), recommend that the sample is largely representative on the subject of public health indicators [30, 47, 48]. Even when the sample, like any household survey, is likely to underestimate the size with the most marginalised smokers (homeless people, drug addicts, persons in prisons), it can be less likely that this underestimation threatens the validity of the study.Weighted datausing un-weighted information (about two percentage points for all years combined), otherwise the outcomes had been equivalent making use of the two various strategies. The similarities of the final results from weighted and un-weighted data within the present study indicate that our findings are valid.Self-reportingAll components utilised inside the present analyses were 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 even though undesirable positions/situations and unhealthy behaviours may well be underestimated. The possible for more than and underestimation may differ inside the unique smoking groups, and 1 should keep in mind the possibility of incorrect estimates of associations.Weighting data to improve the representativeness on the study sample might lead to some difficulties. Within the existing study, weighting was primarily based on gender, age and geographic area on the basic Norwegian population 15 years of age and older.

Personal tools