Article

Monitoring the tobacco use epidemic I. Overview: Optimizing measurement to facilitate change.

Department of Health Behavior, School of Public Health and Health Professions, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 312 Kimball Tower, Buffalo, New York 14214-8028, USA.
Preventive Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.93). 10/2008; 48(1 Suppl):S4-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.08.007
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This Overview paper (I of V) summarizes research work to date on monitoring the tobacco use epidemic, discusses the recommendations made at the November, 2002 National Tobacco Monitoring, Research and Evaluation Workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Legacy Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on the topic of tobacco surveillance and evaluation, and discusses the current state of affairs.
A conceptual model based on the classical infectious diseases framework/paradigm focusing on the Agent, Host, Vector and Environment is used to integrate the work presented in the four other papers that appear in this supplemental issue of Preventive Medicine.
The Agent paper (II) describes surveillance on tobacco products and biomarkers; the Host paper (III) describes surveillance on the smoker/user, or potential smoker/user; the Vector paper (IV) describes monitoring of industry activity; and the Environment paper (V) describes several key strategies for monitoring influential environmental factors. Overall, some improvements to the nation's surveillance system have been made in recent years. However, additional steps are needed to optimize measurement of tobacco use and factors influencing use in the United States.
Tobacco monitoring efforts play a vital role in combating the epidemic of addiction and disease produced by various tobacco products. The knowledge and experience gained by the tobacco use prevention and control community through this commitment to linkages of data collected in the domains of Vector and Environment, in addition to Agent and Host, could inform monitoring of a wide range of other public health issues as well, including diet and nutrition, physical activity, overweight and obesity, and substance abuse.

0 Followers
 · 
98 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Tobacco use and quit attempts are two key indicators of the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) that assess quit attempts among current as well as former tobacco users. The relevant data have inherent policy implications for tobacco cessation programme evaluation. This study aimed to review the concepts of quit attempt assessment and quantifying invalid responses considering GATS-India data. Materials and Methods: GATS assessment of tobacco use and quit attempts were examined in the current literature. Two categories of invalid responses were identified by stratified analysis of the duration of last quit attempt among current users and duration of abstinence among former users. Category A included absolute invalid responses when time- frame of assessment of current tobacco use and less than former tobacco use were violated. Category B included responses that violated the unit of measurement of time. Results: Current daily use, current less than daily use and former use in GATS were imprecisely defined with overlapping of time-frame of assessment. Overall responses of 3,102 current smokers, 4,036 current smokeless users, 1,904 former smokers and 1,343 former smokeless users were analyzed to quantify invalid responses. Analysis indicated overall 21.2% (category A: 7.32%; category B: 17.7%) and 22.7% (category A: 8.05%; category B: 18.1%) invalid responses among current smokers and smokeless users respectively regarding their duration of last quit attempt. Similarly overall 6.62% (category A: 4.7%; category B: 2.3%) and 10.6% (category A: 8.6%; category B: 3.5%) invalid responses were identified among former smokers and smokeless users respectively regarding their duration of abstinence. Conclusions: High invalid responses for a single assessment are due to the imprecise definition of current use, former use and quit attempt; and failure to utilize opportunity of direct data entry interface use during the survey to validate responses instantly. Redefining tobacco use and quit attempts considering an appropriate timeframe would reduce invalid responses.
    Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention: APJCP 11/2013; 14(11):6563-8. DOI:10.7314/APJCP.2013.14.11.6563 · 1.50 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adolescent tobacco use is influenced by intrapersonal (e.g., impulse control) and external factors, such as behaviors of friends and peers. The relationships of these factors to smokeless tobacco (ST) use are not yet fully understood. This is especially true as it pertains to the simultaneous examination of psychological and normative perceptions. Using constructs of the Biopsychosocial Model, this study investigates factors associated with lifetime ST use among middle and high school students. Data were analyzed from 938 Indiana middle and high school students. Binary sequential logistic regression was performed to examine the relationship of personal characteristics and psychosocial measures to adolescent lifetime ST use. Approximately 9 % reported having ever used ST, among which 78.6 % were male. Females and younger students were less likely to have used ST in their lifetime, whereas participants with a sibling smoker and those who compared their life to the lives of others were more likely to report lifetime ST usage. In the presence of psychological and normative variables, sex, age, and comparing one's life to others remained significant. Additionally, participants who perceived higher friend approval of substance use were significantly more likely to report lifetime ST use. Understanding the normative perceptions of adolescents may lend insight into the drivers of ST use adolescent subgroups and, which may enable community and school officials to tailor interventions to prevent ST initiation and promote cessation.
    Journal of Community Health 07/2014; 40(2). DOI:10.1007/s10900-014-9918-7 · 1.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background In South and Southeast Asian countries, tobacco is consumed in diverse forms, and smoking among women is very low. We aimed to provide national estimates of prevalence and social determinants of smoking and smokeless tobacco use among men and women separately. Methods Data from Demographic and Health Surveys completed in nine countries (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives, Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, and Timor Leste) were analyzed. Current smoking or smokeless tobacco use was assessed as response “yes” to one or more of three questions, such as “Do you currently smoke cigarettes?” Weighted country-level prevalence rates for socio-economic subgroups were calculated for smoking and smokeless tobacco use. Binary logistic regression analyses were done on STATA/IC (version 10) by ‘svy’ command. Results Prevalence and type of tobacco use among men and women varied across the countries and among socio-economic sub groups. Smoking prevalence was much lower in women than men in all countries. Smoking among men was very high in Indonesia, Maldives, and Bangladesh. Smokeless tobacco (mainly chewable) was used in diverse forms, particularly in India, among both men and women. Chewing tobacco was common in Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives, and Cambodia. Both smoking and smokeless tobacco use were associated with higher age, lower education, and poverty, but their association with place of residence and marital status was not uniform between men and women across the countries. Conclusion Policymakers should consider type of tobacco consumption and their differentials among various population subgroups to implement country-specific tobacco control policies and target the vulnerable groups. Smokeless tobacco use should also be prioritized in tobacco control efforts.
    Population Health Metrics 08/2014; 12(22). DOI:10.1186/s12963-014-0022-0 · 2.11 Impact Factor