Project description:BACKGROUND: The primary objective was to systematically review the medical literature for instruments validated for use in epidemiological and clinical research on waterpipe smoking. METHODS: We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI the Web of Science. We selected studies using a two-stage duplicate and independent screening process. We included papers reporting on the development and/or validation of survey instruments to measure waterpipe tobacco consumption or related concepts. Two reviewers used a standardized and pilot tested data abstraction form to collect data from each eligible study using a duplicate and independent screening process. We also determined the percentage of observational studies assessing the health effects of waterpipe tobacco smoking and the percentage of studies of prevalence of waterpipe tobacco smoking that have used validated survey instruments. RESULTS: We identified a total of five survey instruments. One instrument was designed to measure knowledge, attitudes, and waterpipe use among pregnant women and was shown to have internal consistency and content validity. Three instruments were designed to measure waterpipe tobacco consumption, two of which were reported to have face validity. The fifth instrument was designed to measure waterpipe dependence and was rigorously developed and validated. One of the studies of prevalence and none of the studies of health effects of waterpipe smoking used validated instruments. CONCLUSIONS: A number of instruments for measuring the use of and dependence on waterpipe smoking exist. Future research should study content validity and cross cultural adaptation of these instruments.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Cigarette smoking is the strongest risk factor for COPD. Smoking burden is frequently measured in pack-years, but the relative contribution of cigarettes smoked per day versus duration towards the development of structural lung disease, airflow obstruction and functional outcomes is not known. METHODS:We analysed cross-sectional data from a large multicentre cohort (COPDGene) of current and former smokers. Primary outcome was airflow obstruction (FEV1/FVC); secondary outcomes included five additional measures of disease: FEV1, CT emphysema, CT gas trapping, functional capacity (6?min walk distance, 6MWD) and respiratory morbidity (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, SGRQ). Generalised linear models were estimated to compare the relative contribution of each smoking variable with the outcomes, after adjustment for age, race, sex, body mass index, CT scanner, centre, age of smoking onset and current smoking status. We also estimated adjusted means of each outcome by categories of pack-years and combined groups of categorised smoking duration and cigarettes/day, and estimated linear trends of adjusted means for each outcome by categorised cigarettes/day, smoking duration and pack-years. RESULTS:10?187 subjects were included. For FEV1/FVC, standardised beta coefficient for smoking duration was greater than for cigarettes/day and pack-years (P<0.001). After categorisation, there was a linear increase in adjusted means FEV1/FVC with increase in pack-years (regression coefficient ?=-0.023±SE0.003; P=0.003) and duration over all ranges of smoking cigarettes/day (?=-0.041±0.004; P<0.001) but a relatively flat slope for cigarettes/day across all ranges of smoking duration (?=-0.009±0.0.009; P=0.34). Strength of association of duration was similarly greater than pack-years for emphysema, gas trapping, FEV1, 6MWD and SGRQ. CONCLUSION:Smoking duration alone provides stronger risk estimates of COPD than the composite index of pack-years. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Post-results; NCT00608764.
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to assess the relationship of pack-years smoking and time since smoking cessation with risk of lung and heart disease.MethodsWe investigated the history of lung and heart disease in 903 HIV-infected patients who had undergone thoracic computed tomography (CT) imaging stratified by smoking history. Multimorbidity lung and heart disease (MLHD) was defined as the presence of ≥ 2 clinical or subclinical lung abnormalities and at least one heart abnormality.ResultsAmong 903 patients, 23.7% had never smoked, 28.7% were former smokers and 47.6% were current smokers. Spirometry indicated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 11.4% of patients and MLHD was present in 53.6%. Age, male sex, greater pack-years smoking history and smoking cessation less than 5 years earlier vs. more than 10 years earlier (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.27-5.29, p = 0.009) were independently associated with CT detected subclinical lung and heart disease. Pack-years smoking history was more strongly associated with MLHD than smoking status (p<0.001).ConclusionsMLHD is common even among HIV-infected patients who never smoked and pack- years smoking history is a stronger predictor than current smoking status of MLHD. A detailed pack-years smoking history should be routinely obtained and smoking cessation strategies implemented.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Smoking as an epidemiological exposure can be quantified in many ways including duration, intensity, pack-years, recency, and age at initiation. However, it is not clear which of these are most important for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and how they should be modeled. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Using the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, Cox models for time to incident CVD adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education category, and income category were compared which included various characterizations of smoking history. RESULTS:Duration, age at starting, time since quitting, and noncigarette forms of smoking were not independently associated with CVD, whereas baseline current intensity was associated with CVD [e.g., hard CVD hazard ratio 1 pack/d of 1.85 95% confidence interval (1.33, 2.57)]. Former smokers, regardless of duration, intensity, or recency, were not at increased risk, suggesting that risk may risk may drop precipitously from the time of quitting. For CVD events, representing smoking exposure as baseline smoking intensity produced better model fit as measured by Akaike information criterion than models using smoking status or pack-years. CONCLUSION:The association of smoking with incident CVD events was well captured by including a simple term for baseline smoking intensity.
Project description:BackgroundTobacco companies use colour on cigarette packaging and labelling to communicate brand imagery, diminish health concerns, and as a replacement for prohibited descriptive words ('light' and 'mild') to make misleading claims about reduced risks.MethodsWe analysed previously secret tobacco industry documents to identify additional ways in which cigarette companies tested and manipulated pack colours to affect consumers' perceptions of the cigarettes' flavour and strength.ResultsCigarette companies' approach to package design is based on 'sensation transference' in which consumers transfer sensations they derive from the packaging to the product itself. Companies manipulate consumers' perceptions of the taste and strength of cigarettes by changing the colour of the packaging. For example, even without changes to the tobacco blends, flavourings or additives, consumers perceive the taste of cigarettes in packages with red and darker colours to be fuller flavoured and stronger, and cigarettes in packs with more white and lighter colours are perceived to taste lighter and be less harmful.ConclusionsCompanies use pack colours to manipulate consumers' perceptions of the taste, strength and health impacts of the cigarettes inside the packs, thereby altering their characteristics and effectively creating new products. In countries that do not require standardised packaging, regulators should consider colour equivalently to other changes in cigarette characteristics (eg, physical characteristics, ingredients, additives and flavourings) when making determinations about whether or not to permit new products on the market.
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether smoking duration alone can replace pack-years to predict the risk of oncogenic mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).DesignA cross-sectional study using the baseline dataset from the Japan Molecular Epidemiology for Lung Cancer Study.SettingForty-three medical institutions nationwide in Japan.ParticipantsFrom July 2012 to December 2013, 957 patients with newly diagnosed stage I-IIIB NSCLC who underwent surgery were enrolled, and molecular analyses were performed on 876 samples (from 441 ever-smokers and 435 never-smokers).Main outcomes measuredWe calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values using logistic regression to compare between the predictive values of smoking duration and pack-years for mutational frequencies in the v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS), tumour suppressor p53 (TP53), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) genes and for cytosine-to-adenine base substitution (C>A).ResultsFor predicting KRAS mutations, the AUC values for smoking duration and pack-years were 0.746 (95% CI 0.682 to 0.800) and 0.759 (95% CI 0.700 to 0.810), respectively (p=0.058). For predicting KRAS mutations in smokers, the AUC values for smoking duration and pack-years were 0.772 (95% CI 0.697 to 0.833) and 0.787 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.845), respectively (p=0.036). There were no significant differences between the AUC values for smoking duration and pack-years in terms of predicting TP53 and EGFR mutations and C>A. Pack-years was a significantly better predictor of KRAS mutations than smoking duration.ConclusionSmoking duration was not significantly different from pack-years in predicting the likelihood of smoking-related gene mutations. Given the recall bias in obtaining smoking information, smoking duration alone should be considered for further investigation as a simpler alternative to pack-years.
Project description:Background: Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure in children ranks one of the major public health problems in our time. Poor parental knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) on ETS often contribute to worse exposure of the kids. Thus, we aimed to document parental KAP regarding tobacco use, smoking cessation and children's ETS exposure, and to analyse how knowledge and attitude relate to practice. Methods: Self-administered KAP questionnaires were distributed to smoking parents recruited from the pediatric unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital, which provides pediatric service to a population of 1.2 million in Hong Kong. The 60-item questionnaire had a range of 0-38 for knowledge, 0-44 for attitude, and 0-40 for practice. Descriptive analyses were performed for KAP response, regression analyses were performed for the exploration of associations and identification of predictive indicators. Results: 145 smoking parents (mean age: 38.0 ± 6.7 yrs.; male: 85.5%) were included. Less than half (39.3%) of them reported a smoke-free policy at home. Among those parents who had private cars, less than half (45.2%) of them had smoke-free policy in their car that they never smoked in the car. Only 25.5% of the participants correctly answered ≥70% of the knowledge questions, and 11.8 % of the participants gave favorable responses to ≥70% of the attitude questions. The total knowledge and the total attitudes score were positively associated (r = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.35-0.79, p < 0.001), yet they were only modestly correlated with parental practice on children's ETS exposure. By multivariate regressions, potential predictive factors for more favorable parental KAP included higher household income, lower parental nicotine dependence level and breastfeeding practice. Conclusions: Parental KAP related to tobacco use and children's ETS exposure needs improvement to address the significant gap between recommended and actual practice. The weak association between knowledge and practice suggested that parental education alone is not adequate to combat ETS exposure in children.
Project description:The methods section of a scientific article often receives the most scrutiny from journal editors, peer reviewers, and skeptical readers because it allows them to judge the validity of the results. The methods section also facilitates critical interpretation of study activities, explains how the study avoided or corrected for bias, details how the data support the answer to the study question, justifies generalizing the findings to other populations, and facilitates comparison with past or future studies. In 2006, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Programme began collecting and disseminating guidelines for reporting health research studies. In addition, guidelines for reporting public health investigations not classified as research have also been developed. However, regardless of the type of study or scientific report, the methods section should describe certain core elements: the study design; how participants were selected; the study setting; the period of interest; the variables and their definitions used for analysis; the procedures or instruments used to measure exposures, outcomes, and their association; and the analyses. Specific requirements for each study type should be consulted during the project planning phase and again when writing begins. We present requirements for reporting methods for public health activities, including outbreak investigations, public health surveillance programs, prevention and intervention program evaluations, research, surveys, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
Project description:ImportancePictorial warnings on cigarette packs draw attention and increase quit intentions, but their effect on smoking behavior remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of adding pictorial warnings to the front and back of cigarette packs.Design, setting, and participantsThis 4-week between-participant randomized clinical trial was carried out in California and North Carolina. We recruited a convenience sample of adult cigarette smokers from the general population beginning September 2014 through August 2015. Of 2149 smokers who enrolled, 88% completed the trial. No participants withdrew owing to adverse events.InterventionsWe randomly assigned participants to receive on their cigarette packs for 4 weeks either text-only warnings (one of the Surgeon General's warnings currently in use in the United States on the side of the cigarette packs) or pictorial warnings (one of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act's required text warnings and pictures that showed harms of smoking on the top half of the front and back of the cigarette packs).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary trial outcome was attempting to quit smoking during the study. We hypothesized that smokers randomized to receive pictorial warnings would be more likely to report a quit attempt during the study than smokers randomized to receive a text-only Surgeon General's warning.ResultsOf the 2149 participants who began the trial (1039 men, 1060 women, and 34 transgender people; mean [SD] age, 39.7 [13.4] years for text-only warning, 39.8 [13.7] for pictorial warnings), 1901 completed it. In intent-to-treat analyses (n = 2149), smokers whose packs had pictorial warnings were more likely than those whose packs had text-only warnings to attempt to quit smoking during the 4-week trial (40% vs 34%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.54). The findings did not differ across any demographic groups. Having quit smoking for at least the 7 days prior to the end of the trial was more common among smokers who received pictorial than those who received text-only warnings (5.7% vs 3.8%; OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.02-2.29). Pictorial warnings also increased forgoing a cigarette, intentions to quit smoking, negative emotional reactions, thinking about the harms of smoking, and conversations about quitting.Conclusions and relevancePictorial warnings effectively increased intentions to quit, forgoing cigarettes, quit attempts, and successfully quitting smoking over 4 weeks. Our trial findings suggest that implementing pictorial warnings on cigarette packs in the United States would discourage smoking.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02247908.