Curtailing tobacco use: first we need to know the numbers
Emory Global Health Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.The Lancet (Impact Factor: 39.21). 08/2012; 380(9842):629-30. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61307-5
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Articles 20, 21, and 22 call for strong monitoring and reporting of tobacco use and factors influencing use and disease (Articles 20 and 21) and for collaboration among the Parties and relevant organizations to share resources, knowledge, and expertise on all relevant tobacco control strategies (Article 22). METHODS: This paper provides background information and discusses research strategies that would strengthen these efforts and better inform the Parties. By necessity, Articles 20 and 21 are discussed separately from Article 22, although 1 example that relates to both 20/21 and 22 is discussed at the end. RESULTS: Twelve important research opportunities on surveillance and evaluation are recognized, along with 4 on collaboration. The authors believe that the 6 most important areas for research would study (a) possible underreporting of tobacco use among certain demographic groups in some countries, (b) measures of industry activities, (c) optimal sampling strategies, (d) sentinel surveillance, (e) networks of tobacco companies and their partners as they promote tobacco use and interfere with implementation of the FCTC, and (f) network/relationship factors that impact diffusion of knowledge and decision making on the implementation of the FCTC. In addition, we call for a review process of existing surveillance and evaluation strategies to coordinate activities to make optimal use of existing resources. This activity would involve networking as prescribed in Article 22. CONCLUSIONS: Studies and activities such as these would facilitate control of the tobacco epidemic.Nicotine & Tobacco Research 01/2013; DOI:10.1093/ntr/nts336 · 2.81 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: The Global Adult Tobacco Survey has 15 key indicators, cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) among daily smokers being one of them. The first wave of GATS in 14 countries indicated that mean CPD use is higher in women than men in India only, which is contrary to the current understanding of tobacco use globally. This study was undertaken to understand the unusual findings for mean CPD use in the GATS-India survey. Materials and Methods: Items B06a and B06b of the GATS India survey questionnaire that collected information on daily consumption of manufactured and rolled cigarettes were analyzed using SPSS software. Exclusive users were identified from these items after excluding the concurrent users of other tobacco products. Cigarette type, exclusive use and gender stratified analyses were made. Consumption of different types of cigarettes among the mixed users of manufactured and rolled cigarettes were correlated. Results: Higher mean number of CPD use among male daily-smokers was observed than their female counterparts in product specific analysis. Mean CPD as per GATS cigarette definition was higher in males than females for exclusive users but a reverse trend was observed in case of non-exclusive users. Use of manufactured cigarettes increased with increase in use of rolled cigarette among the mixed users and around half of these users reported equal CPD frequency for the both types of cigarettes. Conclusions: The anomaly in mean CPD estimate in GATS-India data was due to inclusion of two heterogeneous products to define cigarettes, variation in cigarette product specific user proportions contributing to the average and non-exclusive concurrent use of other tobacco products. The consumption pattern of cigarettes among the mixed users highlights bias in CPD reporting. Definition, analysis and interpretation of ‘cigarettes per day’ in the GATS India survey need to be improved by redefining cigarettes and making product specific analysesAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 05/2013; 14(5):3299-3304. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.5.3299 · 1.50 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.