2019年武汉市成人吸烟状况调查及影响因素分析

目的 分析武汉市15岁及以上的城乡常住居民吸烟情况及影响因素,为有效开展控烟工作提供参考依据。方法 于2019年采用多阶段随机抽样方法抽取武汉市3个区36个居委会（村）2 551名15岁以上的常住居民直接上门进行问卷调查,对不同特征成年居民的吸烟情况进行分析。采用SPSS 22.0软件进行统计分析,每组间比较采用χ2检验。结果 2019年武汉市成人的现在吸烟率和现在每日吸烟率分别为23.5%和19.8%;男性高于女性,其中男性现在吸烟率及现在每日吸烟率分别为44.8%和38.2%,女性现在吸烟率及现在每日吸烟率分别为2.4%和1.6%;不同性别、年龄、文化、职业的成年现在吸烟率和现在每日吸烟率差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。多因素logistic回归分析结果:男性（OR = 89.689,95%CI:35.407～227.191）、年龄25～44岁（OR = 8.797,95%CI:2.977～25.991）、年龄45～64岁（OR = 10.437,95%CI:3.421～31.837）、65岁以上（OR = 10.558,95%CI:1.455～76.623）、在家中暴露于二手烟（OR =9.777,95%CI:5.701～16.767）、在商店看到过卷烟推销的广告和标牌（OR = 2.230,95%CI:1.012～4.913）的居民现在吸烟概率高,家中有不允许吸烟规定的（OR = 0.559,95%CI:0.342～0.912）的居民现在吸烟概率较低,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 武汉市成年居民吸烟率较高,需针对低文化程度、女性、中老年男性及留守老年农民等重点人群采取特别的戒烟干预措施,并引导公众有意识地远离吸烟,采取健康的生活方式。     

2007年江苏省部分公共场所成人吸烟与被动吸烟状况

目的 了解江苏省部分公共场所成人吸烟和被动吸烟情况.方法 于2007年采用方便抽样的方法对江苏省4类公共场所18岁及以上成人进行问卷调查.结果 共凋查1 036人,成人吸烟率和现在吸烟率分别为32.7%和29.2%,男性高于女性(P＜0.001).被动吸炯率为.52.9%,戒烟率为10.0%.对吸烟和被动吸烟危害相关知识完全正确知晓率为53.2%,其中吸烟和被动吸烟有害健康的正确知晓率最高(90%以上),被动吸烟与心脏病有关的正确知晓率最低(66.4%).对6类场所全部禁烟的总支持率为23.6%,其中对医院、学校和公共交通工具全部禁烟的支持率最高(80%以上),对餐厅和酒吧的支持率最低(50%以下).在调整了性别、年龄、文化程度和婚姻状况后,吸烟和被动吸烟危害相关知识完全正确知晓率、公共场所全部禁烟支持率均与吸烟呈负相关(OR=0.57,95%CI:0.39～0.79;OR=0.42,95%CI:0.27～0.65),公共场所全部禁烟支持率与被动吸烟呈负相关(OR=0.61.95%CI:0.43～0.86).结论 江苏省部分公共场所成人吸烟和被动吸烟情况较高,应加强吸烟危害宣传,并采取相应措施减少被动吸烟.     

上海市居民吸烟、戒烟及被动吸烟现状

目的 了解上海市15岁及以上居民的吸烟、戒烟和被动吸烟的流行水平,为有针对性的制定控烟措施提供基础资料.方法 利用2007年上海市慢性病及其危险因素监测调查数据,对17174名(男性8072人,女性9102人)15岁及以上居民的吸烟、戒烟和被动吸烟状况进行描述性分析,指标包括吸烟率、现在吸烟率、常吸烟率、重型吸烟率、戒烟率、成功戒烟率、被动吸烟率.结果 男性居民的吸烟率、现在吸烟率、常吸烟率、重型吸烟率分别为61.8%,54.8%,48.5%,28.3%,女性分别为1.2%,1.0%,0.7%和0.2%.人群的戒烟率、成功戒烟率分别为11.3%和8.6%.非吸烟者的被动吸烟率为43.1%,暴露场所主要是工作场所和家中.结论 上海市居民吸烟率、被动吸烟率处于较高水平,戒烟率较低,烟草控制面临巨大挑战.     

广州市居民吸烟行为及其影响因素

目的 了解广州市居民吸烟行为及其影响因素,为开展有效的控烟工作提供依据。方法 2004年4—8月,采用多阶段随机整群抽样方法 ,对抽中的家庭由经过培训的调查员入户进行问卷调查。结果 该市27718名15岁及以上常住居民完成调查,得到有效问卷25684份。居民吸烟率为22.7%,男性吸烟率为46.2%,女性吸烟率为2.0%;现在吸烟率为19.9%,男性现在吸烟率为40.5%,女性现在吸烟率为1.6%。吸烟者开始吸烟年龄中位数为20岁,现在吸烟者日均吸烟中位数为14.3支。戒烟率为13.1%,复吸率为9.4%。Logistic逐步回归分析显示,性别（OR=0.022,95%CI：0.019～0.026）、文化程度（OR=0.697,95%CI：0.659～0.737）、家庭人均年收入（OR=0.975,95%CI：0.955～0.995）和饮酒（OR=2.687,95%CI：2.467～2.927）是吸烟的影响因素,在以在校学生或未婚状况为对照时,职业和婚姻状况亦是吸烟的影响因素。结论 广州市居民吸烟率仍处于相对较高的水平,吸烟主要在男性中流行,控烟工作仍需加强。     

2012年北京市顺义区居民吸烟与被动吸烟状况调查

目的了解北京市顺义区居民吸烟与被动吸烟情况,为采取有针对性的健康教育提供科学依据。方法通过等比例多阶段整群随机抽样的方法,对顺义区12个社区1434户常住居民进行问卷调查,每户通过KISH表随机调查15～79岁居民1人。结果顺义区居民现在吸烟率为27．5％,男性（55．9％）显著高于女性（2．0％）,随着月收入增长,吸烟率上升趋势（P〈0．01）。吸第1支烟的平均年龄为（21．1±6．3）岁。41．1％的居民有被动吸烟,不同性别、年龄、文化程度、收入水平的居民被动吸烟报告率的差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。平均每周有5．5d被动吸烟,被动吸烟场所主要为家庭和工作场所。22．3％的吸烟居民有戒烟意愿,戒烟主要原因为“意识到吸烟的危害”（73．9％）。结论该区居民吸烟和被动吸烟比例较高,需要加强健康教育和控烟工作,促进居民健康。     

中国5 个地区45～65 岁女性吸烟及被动吸烟现况分析

目的 分析我国女性吸烟和被动吸烟现况及其分布特点。方法 采用2008－2010年中国多中心女性乳腺癌优化筛查方案研究中32 720 名45～65 岁女性数据, 根据吸烟率、现在吸烟率、经常吸烟率、重度吸烟率、戒烟率、成功戒烟率以及被动吸烟率等指标分析不同地区、不同年龄别的总体吸烟和被动吸烟现况。结果 共有913 名（2.8%）女性有吸烟史, 不同地区女性吸烟率（北京2.8%、天津5.9%、南昌1.7%、肥城0.9 %、沈阳1.8%）的差异有统计学意义。女性现在吸烟率、经常吸烟率和重度吸烟率分别为1.8%、1.0%和0.2%, 且随着女性年龄增加, 总体吸烟率和现在吸烟率呈现明显上升趋势, 在不同年龄别之间经常吸烟率和重度吸烟率无明显变化趋势。吸烟女性中, 中位初始吸烟年龄、中位每日吸烟量及中位持续吸烟年数分别30 岁、10 支/天和16 年。戒烟率和成功戒烟率分别为19.1%和8.2%。此外共有45.7%（12 730/27 874）的女性存在被动吸烟暴露情况。结合吸烟和被动吸烟, 女性总烟草暴露率为41.8%（13 670/32 720）。结论 我国女性吸烟率处在一个相对较低的水平, 但戒烟率也同样较低, 而被动吸烟却呈现相对较高的水平。     

上海市长宁区居民被动吸烟状况及其影响因素调查

目的了解上海市长宁区居民被动吸烟状况及其影响因素。方法采用分层随机抽样的方法,在长宁区178个居委会中,随机抽取长宁区年龄为15～69周岁的常住居民,开展一对一问卷调查。内容涵盖被动吸烟状况及烟草危害的知信行。结果长宁区居民被动吸烟率40.4%,其中家中被动吸烟率为22.2%,工作场所被动吸烟率为22.5%,其他公共场所以餐厅被动吸烟率最高(66.0%),政府办公机构次之(12.5%)。男性与女性非吸烟者被动吸烟率差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。吸烟者与非吸烟者家中吸烟规定差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。非条件Logistic回归分析发现,男性(OR=0.404,95%CI:0.243～0.673)和高收入(OR=1.350,95%CI:1.008～1.808)是被动吸烟的危险因素,家庭禁烟规定严格(OR=0.512,95%CI:0.387～0.677)则是保护因素。结论长宁区居民遭受被动吸烟以活动的公共场所为主,其中餐厅最高;居民在工作场所以及家中的被动吸烟率相对较低。今后将致力于加强男性非吸烟者、月收入相对较高人群的烟草危害健康教育。     

江苏省部分地区医生、教师和公务员吸烟和被动吸烟调查

目的了解江苏省医生、教师和公务员三类人群吸烟和被动吸烟状况。方法于2008年对江苏省5个城市的4731名医生、教师和公务员的吸烟和被动吸烟情况进行了问卷调查。结果三类人群总的吸烟率和现在吸烟率分别为30．1％和24．4％,男性吸烟率和现在吸烟率分别为53．1％和43．1％,戒烟率、成功戒烟率和被动吸烟率分别为20．1％、11．5％和43．4％。在调整地区、性别等因素后,以医生为参照,公务员吸烟、现在吸烟和被动吸烟的OR值（95％CI）分别为1．33（1．12～1．64）、1．36（1．12～1．65）和1．76（1．47～2．12）。教师被动吸烟风险低于医生,OR值（95％CI）为0．60（0．51～0．70）。结论公务员吸烟率、现在吸烟率、戒烟率和被动吸烟率均高于医生和教师,并且不受地区、性别、年龄、学历和工作年限的影响。     

云南省云县不同性别人群吸烟及被动吸烟调查

目的 通过问卷调查了解云南省云县不同性别吸烟和被动吸烟状况.方法 采用分层随机抽样方法 进行问卷调查.对不同性别人群吸烟状况、吸烟开始年龄、平均每日吸烟量、被动吸烟率、被动吸烟开始年龄、被动吸烟暴露量等指标进行分析.结果 被调查的1 002人中,总吸烟率为34.83%,男性吸烟率为71.46%,女性吸烟率为2.08%.开始吸烟的平均年龄为(19.00±5.23)岁,日平均吸烟量为(17.60±11.13)支.被调查者中非吸烟者的被动吸烟率为86.37%,男性被动吸烟率为79.25%,女性为88.22%.在被动吸烟的564人中,从出生就暴露于环境烟雾的有291人,占被动吸烟者的51.60%;被动吸烟者平均每天暴露时间为(3.98±3.43)h,女性被动吸烟者中平均每天暴露时间为(4.11±3.60)h.结论 男性吸烟率与吸烟量偏高,开始吸烟年龄小;女性是被动吸烟的主要人群,女性的被动吸烟率高,日平均暴露量大,暴露年限长.     

非吸烟女性肺癌危险因素病例对照研究

目的 探讨浙江省非吸烟女性患肺癌的危险因素。方法 采用1∶2配对的病例对照研究,收集浙江省30个县（区）2005年11月-2008年12月期间发病的新发非吸烟女性肺癌病例229例;配对对照选取患者,女性邻居、年龄＆#177;3岁、无吸烟史。通过面访调查收集有关危险因素的暴露史,采用单因素及多因素 Logistic 回归模型进行拟合,筛选肺癌的主要危险因素。结果 单因素分析发现有15个暴露因素与非吸烟女性肺癌的发生有关。多因素及因子分析发现,被动吸烟（OR ＝1.598,95％CI：1.016～2.512）、家族肿瘤史（OR ＝5.359,95％CI：1.658～17.326）、呼吸道病史（OR ＝24.427,95％CI：6.111～97.642）、精神心理因素不良（OR ＝2.622,95％CI：1.149～5.983）、人际关系不佳（OR ＝3.041,95％ CI：1.534～6.032）、做饭时自感油烟重（OR ＝1.856,95％CI：1.043～3.301）、常食用腌晒食品（OR ＝1.724,95％CI：1.205～2.466）和初潮年龄晚（OR ＝1.565,95％CI：1.086～2.253）等因素是肺癌发生的危险因素;收入水平高（OR ＝0.650,95％CI：0.484～0.873）和常食用新鲜蔬菜（OR ＝0.683,95％CI：0.504～0.926）是肺癌的保护因素。趋势性检验发现,非吸烟女性被动吸烟与肺癌的相对危险度之间存在一定剂量反应关系。结论 针对非吸烟女性肺癌的相关危险因素,需采取综合干预措施,以降低肺癌的发生率。     

Household smoking restrictions and adolescent smoking

PURPOSE: To examine the association between household smoking restrictions and adolescent smoking, controlling for parental smoking, peer smoking, and tobacco marketing. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 1999 data from the Growing Up Today Study, a longitudinal cohort of adolescents. SETTING: Self-report questionnaire. SUBJECTS: 10,593 adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. MEASURES: The dependent variable was established smoking (smoking > or = 100 cigarettes). Variables of interest were household smoking restrictions, parental smoking, peer smoking, and tobacco promotional item (TPI) possession. RESULTS: Four percent of participants reported that their households permitted smoking. Parental smoking, peer smoking, and TPI possession were significantly associated with established smoking In logistic regression models adjusted for age, gender, peer smoking, and TPI possession, adolescent smoking was inversely related to the presence of a restrictive household policy (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.93); however, when parental smoking was added to this model, the association was attenuated (OR = 0.94, CI = 0.65-1.35). When only one parent in the household smoked, smoking restrictions were more common when this parent was the father. CONCLUSIONS: Although household smoking restrictions offer health benefits, they do not appear to be associated with adolescent smoking after accounting for other factors. Prior studies did not include parental smoking, peer smoking, and marketing influences. This analytic difference may explain apparent contradictions in the literature.     

Household smoking bans and adolescents' perceived prevalence of smoking and social acceptability of smoking

OBJECTIVES: Household smoking bans might decrease the visibility of cigarette smoking and communicate nonsmoking social norms and parental attitudes to youths, which may serve as mediators to reduce smoking initiation. Whether they have these effects even if parents smoke or do not otherwise communicate strong disapproval of smoking to their children is not clear. We tested these hypotheses in multi-level analyses. METHODS: A telephone survey of a random sample of 3831 Massachusetts adolescents (12-17 years) assessed respondents' perceptions of smoking prevalence and attitudes about the social acceptability of smoking in their community. The association of these outcomes with the presence of a smoking ban in the youths' home was tested in multivariate analyses that adjusted for town-level clustering and individual and environmental characteristics. RESULTS: A household smoking ban was reported by 71% of all youths and 49% of youths who lived with smokers. In multivariate models, youths who had a household smoking ban were more likely to perceive a lower adult smoking prevalence (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7-2.5; P < 0.001), greater adult disapproval of adult smoking (OR 2.0; 1.5-2.6; P < 0.001) and of teen smoking (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-1.9; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents, a household smoking ban was associated with a lower perceived prevalence of adult smoking in their communities and more negative attitudes about the social acceptability of smoking, two factors that affect the likelihood of smoking initiation. Household smoking bans had these effects even in the presence of two parental factors known to encourage adolescent smoking initiation (parental smoking and lack of perceived parental disapproval of youth tobacco use). This provides an additional rationale for promoting household smoking bans to parents.     

Adolescent smoking

Most smokers start experimenting with cigarettes in early adolescence. This paper describes the factors which influence the development of the smoking habit. Methods of intervention, both in and out of the classroom, are discussed. Recommendations for further legislation and increased taxation on tobacco are supported.     

Excessive smoking

Ohne Zusammenfassung

---

«La fumée du tabac en dose exagérée»

     

Berlin's medical students' smoking habits, knowledge about smoking and attitudes toward smoking cessation counseling

Background  

Diseases associated with smoking are a foremost cause of premature death in the world, both in developed and developing countries. Eliminating smoking can do more to improve health and prolong life than any other measure in the field of preventive medicine. Today's medical students will play a prominent role in future efforts to prevent and control tobacco use.     

Meanings of smoking and adolescent smoking across ethnicities.

PURPOSE: To develop insight into population-specific meanings of smoking in our highly multicultural middle schools in order to provide effective and appropriate tools for smoking prevention efforts. METHODS: We used focus group interviews to develop the Meanings of Smoking Index (MSI), a nine-item scale that uses a "mark all that apply" strategy to assess what smoking means to children who have tried smoking as well as to those who are susceptible to smoking. In 24 public and parochial middle schools in the greater Los Angeles area, 2336 7th graders (1483 Latino, 565 Asian/ Pacific Islander and 288 white, 55.2% of the sample was female) completed the MSI as part of a school-based trial of culturally-targeted smoking prevention strategies. Items were rank ordered according to salience (rate of endorsement) and relevance (strength of relationship with lifetime smoking) across the entire sample and separately for Hispanic/Latino, Asian/Asian-American and white respondents. Spearman correlation coefficient was used to compare results between ethnicities. RESULTS: The most frequently endorsed meanings were similar across ethnicities. Magnitude of associations between smoking behaviors and meanings were dissimilar across ethnicities. The meaning with the strongest relationship to lifetime smoking for whites and Latinos was "it helps me study" (OR 3.4 and 2.6 respectively), and for Asians was "don't want to make another smoke alone" (OR 5.4). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown previously that interventions on meanings of eating behaviors changed dietary behaviors in adolescents. The present findings suggest that meanings are powerful determinants of adolescent smoking in culturally diverse populations and could offer powerful intervention tools to prevent adolescent smoking.     

Predicting adult smoking: the influence of smoking during adolescence and smoking among friends and family

The aim of the study was to predict smoking from early adolescenceto adulthood by using longitudinal data. The data was gatheredin connection with the North Karelia Youth Project. The projectwas started in 1978 with students in the seventh grade of juniorhigh school (aged 13 years) and finished in 1980 when the studentsreached the ninth grade. The follow-up study included four additionalsurveys over 15 years, the last being in 1993–94. Theresults show that two-thirds of the smokers in the ninth gradeof junior high school (aged 15 years) were still smoking atthe age of 28. About half of the smokers at the age of 28 weresmokers in the ninth grade and the other half had started afterthat. Previous smoking status and smoking by friends were themost important predictors of smoking. The continuity of smokingand non-smoking from adolescence to adulthood supports the importanceof prevention programs in junior high school. On the other hand,about half of the smoking adults had started smoking after that.This indicates that the prevention programs should continueafter junior high school.