![]() ![]() 16 Understanding the ways in which nondaily smokers are similar to and different from daily and non-smokers is important for the development of targeted interventions.Īlthough several studies have documented the large proportion of college student who are nondaily smokers, relatively few studies have compared nondaily smoking to daily and non-smoking by college students. ![]() 15, 16 Once identified, nondaily smokers are still less likely than daily smokers to receive advise to quit from health care providers. 13 Because they do not typically self-identify, nondaily smokers and are less likely than daily smokers to be identified by clinicians. Nondaily smokers often minimize the health effects of their tobacco use. Nondaily smokers are intermittent tobacco users who most often do not consider themselves to be smokers, 10, 14 creating a challenge for interventions. 7– 10 Nondaily smokers refer to those who have smoked in the past month, but less than every day 1, 3, 11– 13 We have chosen to focus on nondaily smoking, defined as smoking on fewer than every day in the previous month, because this definition has been shown to be valid and stable over time. 4 Social smoking is thought to be a subset of occasional smoking that describes smoking in social situations. Examples include occasional smoking which typically refers to smoking on some, but not all days 4– 6 or smoking every few days, every few weeks, or every few months. 2 The broad category is often referred to as light and intermittent smoking (LITS), 2 with several subcategories. ![]() 1– 3 Despite this pattern of smoking being very common, there is no consistent definition or terminology in the literature for smoking less than daily. Infrequent or intermittent smoking (smoking on some, but not all days) is very common among college students, accounting for more than two thirds of college smokers. Better identification of groups with high smoking prevalences are recommended in order to strengthen anti-smoking measures.Most college students who smoke cigarettes do not do so on a daily basis. More information concerning the health hazards of smoking need to be provided to these students. Conclusions: Smoking is highly prevalent among boarding school pupils. Most of the smoking pupils wanted to quit. Knowledge of tobacco as a health hazard was unsatisfactory and similar for boys and girls, although girls were more aware than boys that smoking is a health threat. The percentage of regular smokers in 1986/87 was 59.9% compared to 49.1% in 1989/90 (p < 0.005), but the average daily cigarette consumption was higher in 1989/90 compared with 1986/87 (p < 0.01). Results: In 1986/87 the proportion of smokers (p < 0.0001) and daily cigarette consumption (p < 0.0001) increased after transition to boarding school. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of regular cigarette smoking, daily cigarette consumption, knowledge of health effects of smoking, and desires to quit. Subjects: A representative sample participated including 557 pupils in 1986/87 and 622 pupils in 1989/90. The 1986/87 study was partly retrospective. Design: Two independent cross-sectional questionnaire surveys carried out with an interval of three years (1986//90). To evaluate the influence of sex and age on smoking status, students' knowledge of smoking-induced health hazards, and desires to stop smoking. Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of regular smokers and the trend in smoking prevalence over a 3-year period among Danish boarding school pupils aged 14-17 years. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |