Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Determinants of daily smoking in Turkish young adults in the Netherlands

  • Floor VA van Oort1, 2Email author,
  • Jan van der Ende2,
  • Alfons AM Crijnen2,
  • Frank C Verhulst2,
  • Johan P Mackenbach1 and
  • Inez MA Joung1
BMC Public Health20066:294

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-294

Received: 24 July 2006

Accepted: 06 December 2006

Published: 06 December 2006

Abstract

Background

As little is known about the determinants of smoking in large ethnic minorities in the Netherlands and other Western European countries, we studied the determinants of smoking young adult offspring of Turkish migrants to the Netherlands.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of 439 Turkish adults (18–28 y) in 2003. Smokers were compared with never smokers for five groups of determinants: demographic and socioeconomic factors, behavioral and emotional problems, psychosocial factors, and cultural factors. Associations were measured by prevalence rate ratios.

Results

Prevalences for men were 51% for daily smoking, 12% for former smoking, and 38% for never smoking. For women they were 44%, 11%, and 47%, respectively. Without adjustment for other determinants, higher prevalence was associated with: emotional problems, boredom, life events, and being male; and, specifically among women, with low self-esteem and having children. The strongest determinants of daily smoking In multivariate models were alcohol use and demographic and socio-economic factors. Of the cultural factors only strong Muslim identification was associated with lower smoking prevalence.

Conclusion

The high prevalence of smoking warrants action. Many of the well-known determinants of smoking in Western countries were also important among young adults from ethnic minorities. Women with children and people of a low educational level deserve special attention.

Background

Smoking is one of the greatest public health concerns [1, 2], on which many policies and health promotion campaigns have been implemented, especially over the past two decades. Although it is a modifiable risk factor, effective interventions and the identification of priority groups require fuller understanding of the determinants of smoking behavior.

These determinants have been explored in many different domains. For example, smoking prevalence has been found to be higher among the following groups: men (e.g. [3]), the lower educated in Western countries (e.g. [4, 5]), the unemployed (e.g. [6]), individuals suffering adverse life events or chronic stress (e.g. [5, 7]), those with low self-esteem (e.g. [7]), those with little control over their lives (e.g. [7, 8]), those who are involved in other types of risk behavior (e.g. [5, 9]), and those with emotional problems (e.g. [7, 10, 11]). In certain cases, determinants were sex specific (e.g. [6, 12]).

While the prevalence of smoking is high in several migrant populations [1315], few studies have been conducted among ethnic minorities and migrants. Most of these studies were done in the UK and USA. Although most show that the determinants of smoking in migrants and their offspring are similar to those of the majority population [1619], associations of smoking with socio-economic position were mixed [18, 20, 21]. Among migrants there may also be culture-specific determinants of smoking, such as discrimination and ethnic identity (e.g. [20, 2225]). Acculturation theories predict that migrants will eventually adopt the behaviors of the host population they come into contact with [26, 27]. In addition, the association between acculturation and smoking may vary by educational level of migrants [28, 29].

With regard to large ethnic minorities in Western European countries other than the UK and the USA knowledge of the question is limited [28, 29]. With over 3 million members, Turks are now the largest immigrant group in the European community, Turkish immigrants having arrived as labor migrants in countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France and Sweden between 1960 and 1980.

Compared to levels in Dutch natives and in migrants from other countries living in the Netherlands, smoking prevalence is high among Turkish male labor migrants (42–73%), although it is lower among females (13–34%) [28]. We tested whether the well-known determinants of smoking apply to young Turkish adults in the Netherlands. We studied five groups of determinants: emotional and behavioral problems, and demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial and cultural factors.

Methods

Participants

In 1993, 1198 children aged 4–18 y with one or both parents born in Turkey were randomly selected from the municipal registers in Rotterdam and The Hague [30]. Parents and children were interviewed at home. In 2003, the children -by then young adults- were interviewed again, and information about smoking behavior and determinants was collected.

Of the original 1993 sample, 132 persons were excluded because they did not fulfill inclusion criteria (n = 19), or because the address provided was incorrect (n = 113) (Table 1). Respondents and non-respondents of the original representative sample of 1993 were traced through the municipal registers.
Table 1

Flow of participants

1993

1198

Random sample (4–18 y)

  
   

19

Did not fulfill inclusion criteria

   

113

Incorrect address provided

 

1066

Eligible

  

2003

1066

Target sample (14–28 y)

  
   

Loss to follow-up (9% of 1066)

   

72

Tracing unsuccessful

   

2

Deceased

   

18

Moved out of region

 

974

Approached (91% of 1066)

  
   

6

Did not meet inclusion criteria

 

968

Eligible

Non-response

   

168

Refusal

   

97

Unreachable a

   

64

Incorrect address

   

18

Other reasons

 

621

Respondents (14–28 y) (64% of 968)

184

14–17 years old

 

437

Respondents (18–28 y)

  

a Unreachable after at least 3 attempts at different times over different days

Table 1 shows the flow of participants. Using municipal registers, it was possible to trace 994 (93%) of the 1066 children. Two had died. Individuals who had moved outside the Rotterdam and The Hague regions could not be contacted (n = 18).

For participation, we approached 974 people aged 14–28 y (91% of 1066). Four had no parents born in Turkey, and two had severe intellectual disability. All six were excluded, leaving 968 in all. The response rate was 64% (621 out of 968), with three main reasons for non-response: refusal (17%), incorrect address (6.5%), and unreachable after at least three attempts (10%). Only young adults (18–28 y) were included in the analyses (N = 437); more details of the study have been published previously [31]. All respondents were interviewed at home by a bilingual interviewer speaking Dutch. Most respondents had been born in the Netherlands (78%), those born in Turkey having arrived at an early age (median 3.5 y). Most of them understood the Dutch language very well.

The ethics committee of Erasmus University Medical Center approved the study. All participants have given written informed consent.

Attrition analyses showed that individuals who could not be approached (n = 1066-974 = 92) did not differ in sex or age from those who had been approached. Respondents were slightly younger than non-respondents (21 y vs. 22 y, p < 0.0001). Attrition was not selective for sex, mental health in adolescence in 1993, country of birth, or parents' socio-economic position.

Variables

Smoking behavior

Respondents reported on whether they smoked, or had smoked in the past, and on how many cigarettes they smoked a day. On this bases, they were classified as daily smoker, former smoker, or never smoker. Two respondents were excluded from the analyses because information on smoking behavior was missing, or because the respondent smoked occasionally (but not daily).

Categories of the determinants described below are displayed in table 2.

Demographic factors

Demographic factors comprised age, sex, living with partner, and living with own children. Living with partner was defined as being married or having cohabitated for at least six months.

Socio-economic factors

Socio-economic factors were educational level and number of spells of unemployment after leaving school. Current education was categorized as low (drop-out, lower vocational training), moderate (intermediate vocational training), and high (higher vocational or academic training).

Emotional and behavioral problems

Emotional and behavioral problems were alcohol use, externalizing problems (i.e., aggressive, delinquent and intrusive behaviors), and internalizing problems (i.e., anxiety/depression, psychosomatic complaints, and being withdrawn). These problems were measured using the Adult Self-Report [32]. The Externalizing Problems Scale consists of 36 items (Cronbach's alpha 0.88), and the Internalizing Problems Scale of 39 items (Cronbach's alpha 0.91). Categories were formed with the eightieth-percentile of the distribution as cut-off value.

Psychosocial factors

Psychosocial factors included boredom, number of life events experienced in the previous year, locus of control [33], and self-esteem [34]. As well as house-breaking or fire, the life events were death, an accident, problems with the law, financial problems, divorce, and health problems of a family member. For locus of control we summed the seven items (Cronbach's alpha 0.73), categorizing total scores in the upper quartile of the distribution as internal locus of control and those in the lowest quartile as external locus of control. Self-esteem (10 items, Cronbach's alpha 0.84) was similarly categorized with scores in the upper quartile labeled as high and those in the lowest quartile as low.

Cultural factors

Cultural factors were discrimination, having Dutch friends, ethnic identity, Muslim identity and generation. Discrimination was measured with on the basis of one item: "Generally speaking, how often do you feel you are discriminated against because you are Turkish?". Items for ethnic and Muslim identity were rated on a scale ranging from 'totally disagree (1)' to 'totally agree (5)'. Ethnic identity was assessed on the basis of the items 'I consider myself to be Turkish' and 'I consider myself to be Dutch', and answers were dichotomized (above/below 4). We used a 5-item instrument to measure Muslim identification [35], which included cognitive Muslim identity, emotional attachment, and identification as a Muslim (Cronbach's alpha 0.81). The average score was dichotomized (above/below 4).
Table 2

Distribution of determinants

 

N

(%)

 

N

(%)

Demographic factors

Psychosocial factors

Sex

  

Feel bored

  

   Women

189

49

   Sometimes/never

316

82

   Men

198

51

   Often

71

18

Age

  

Life events

  

   18–23 y

257

66

   0

139

36

   24–28 y

130

34

   1–2

201

52

Living with partner

  

   ≥ 3

47

12

   No

265

68

Locus of control

  

   Yes

122

32

   Internal

93

24

Living with children

  

   Neutral

203

52

   No

321

83

   External

91

24

   Yes

66

17

Self-esteem

  

Socioeconomic factors

   High

102

26

Education

  

   Medium

196

51

   High

93

24

   Low

89

23

   Middle

169

44

Cultural factors

   Low

125

32

Discrimination

  

Unemployment

  

   Sometimes/never

318

84

   No spells

281

73

   Often

61

16

   1 spell

81

21

   Missing

8

 

   ≥ 2 spells

25

6

Dutch friends

  

Emotional and behavioral problems

   No

69

18

Alcohol use

  

   Yes

318

82

   No

295

76

Dutch identity

  

   Yes

92

24

   No

313

81

Externalizing problems

  

   Yes

74

19

   No

312

81

Turkish identity

  

   Yes

75

19

   No

49

13

Internalizing problems

  

   Yes

338

87

   No

317

82

Muslim identity

  

   Yes

70

18

   No

128

33

   

   Yes

259

67

   

Generation

  
   

   Second

300

78

   

   First

87

22

N = 387, 50 former smokers were excluded

Statistical analyses

We determined the proportion of smokers within each category of determinants, and tested for differences with a Chi-square test. Prevalence rate ratios were calculated as measure of relative risk (RR) [36], the relative risks expressing how much higher the prevalence of smoking is in one group than in another. For example, a prevalence that was twice as high for men than for women would thus yield a RR of 2.0. All variables from one set of predictors (e.g. demographic factors) were entered in the first series of models (models 1). For the second model (model 2) we entered all variables in one multivariate model. Interactions of each of the determinants with sex and education were assessed in the regression models. Significance was set at p < 0.05, and borderline significance at 0.05 < p < 0.10.

Results

The prevalence of daily smoking was 47% (n = 204), of former smoking 11% (n = 50), and of never smoking 42% (n = 183). For men prevalences were 51% daily smoking, 12% former smoking, and 38% never smoking; for women they were 44%, 11%, and 47%, respectively. Because the group of former smokers was too small for separate analyses, our findings compare the daily smokers with the never smokers; when former and never smoker groups were merged, findings were similar.

Table 2 presents the distribution of determinants in the study. A quarter of the respondents had a high educational level. Only 3% had experienced a divorce. Most were born in the Netherlands (78%). The median age of arrival in the Netherlands of respondents who were born in Turkey was 3.5 y, with only 10% older than ten at arrival.

Table 3 shows the proportion of smokers by determinant categories (former smokers were excluded). Overall, the associations between smoking and the determinants were as we had expected. Smoking was more prevalent for the following: men, adults living with a partner and/or children, adults who experienced unemployment, used alcohol, had externalizing and/or internalizing problems, often felt bored, experienced multiple adverse life events, had external locus of control, or had low self-esteem.
Table 3

Relative risks for smokers compared with never smokers by determinants

 

Smoker

Model 1

Model 2

 

(%)

RR (95% CI)

RR (95% CI)

Demographic factors (N = 387)

Age

   

   18–23 y

50

-

-

   24–28 y

57

0.94 (0.75, 1.18)

1.01 (0.81, 1.26)

Sex

   

   Women

47*

-

-

   Men

58

1.28 (1.06, 1.55)*

1.15 (0.94, 1.40)

Living with partner

   

   No

47**

-

-

   Yes

65

1.35 (1.07, 1.71)*

1.23 (1.01, 1.52)*

Living with children

   

   No

49*

-a

-

   Yes

68

1.19 (0.91, 1.55)

1.11 (0.87, 1.42)

Socioeconomic factors (N = 387)

Education

   

   High

35**

-

-

   Middle

49

1.35 (0.98, 1.84)†

1.30 (0.95, 1.78)†

   Low

70

1.81 (1.33, 2.47)**

1.59 (1.15, 2.19)*

Unemployment

   

   No spells

47*

-

-

   1 spell

62

1.15 (0.93, 1.42)

1.03 (0.83, 1.27)

   ≥ 2 spells

80

1.39 (1.09, 1.78)*

1.23 (0.90, 1.67)

Emotional and behavioral problems (N = 387)

Alcohol use

   

   No

45**

-

-

   Yes

77

1.68 (1.42, 2.00)**

1.46 (1.20, 1.79)**

Externalizing problems

   

   No

49*

-

-

   Yes

65

1.04 (0.83, 1.31)

1.15 (0.91, 1.45)

Internalizing problems

   

   No

50*

-

-

   Yes

66

1.24 (1.00, 1.55)*

0.89 (0.70, 1.14)

Psychosocial factors (N = 387)

Feel bored

   

   Sometimes/never

48**

-

-

   Often

70

1.31 (1.09, 1.59)*

1.19 (0.98, 1.44)†

Life events

   

   0

45**

-

-b

   1–2

54

1.16 (0.93, 1.45)

1.10 (0.87, 1.39)

   ≥ 3

68

1.38 (1.05, 1.81)**

1.25 (0.93, 1.70)

Locus of control

   

   Internal

44**

-

-

   Neutral

48

0.88 (0.64, 1.21)

0.89 (0.66, 1.20)

   External

71

1.16 (0.82, 1.64)

1.11 (0.78, 1.57)

Self-esteem

   

   High

40**

-a

-a

   Medium

52

1.28 (0.93, 1.76)

1.11 (0.82, 1.50)

   Low

67

1.43 (0.99, 2.05)†

1.23 (0.86, 1.76)

Cultural factors (N = 379)

Discrimination

   

   Sometimes/never

52

-

-

   Often

56

1.05 (0.81, 1.36)

0.93 (0.71, 1.22)

Dutch friends

   

   No

57

-

-

   Yes

52

0.88 (0.69, 1.12)

1.00 (0.78, 1.27)

Dutch identity

   

   No

51

-

-

   Yes

57

1.12 (0.88, 1.41)

1.21 (0.96, 1.52)

Turkish identity

   

   No

55

-

-

   Yes

52

1.04 (0.79, 1.36)

1.14 (0.88, 1.48)

Muslim identity

   

   No

62*

-

-

   Yes

48

0.76 (0.63, 0.92)*

0.83 (0.68, 1.01)†

Generation

   

   Second

54

-

-

   First

46

0.87 (0.68, 1.12)

0.84 (0.65, 1.08)

p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; **p < 0.001; – reference group; 50 former smokers were excluded

Prevalences were tested by Chi-square test; RR relative risk (i.e. prevalence rate ratios); 95% CI 95%-confidence interval

Model 1 determinants by group of determinants; Model 2 all determinants (n = 379)

a interaction by sex p < 0.05. b interaction by educational level p < 0.05.

Interestingly, smoking was more common among people with a lower educational level, a pattern that is particularly common in Western populations. Of the cultural factors, only Muslim identification was associated with smoking. Similar associations were found when determinants were adjusted for the other determinants in their group (model 1 in Table 3), with the exception of externalizing problems and locus of control. Two determinants predicted smoking among women but not among men: living with children (RR women 1.54 (95%-Confidence Interval (CI) 1.07, 2.22)), men 0.84 (95%CI:0.58, 1.23)), and low self-esteem (RR women 2.45 (95%CI:1.28, 4.69), men 1.00 (95%CI: 0.65, 1.54)).

In the fully adjusted model, the only determinants of daily smoking were living with partner, low education, and alcohol use; boredom and Muslim identification were also associated, but more weakly. Low self-esteem was a determinant for women only (RR 2.15 (95%CI: 1.19, 3.88), men 0.90 (95%CI: 0.56, 1.43)). Experience of multiple adverse life events was a determinant among the higher educated only (RR ≥ 3 events: high 3.50 (95%CI: 1.09, 11.21), low 1.09 (95%CI: 0.69, 1.72)). The relative risks of the most distal determinants (demographic and socio-economic factors) were attenuated compared with the first model. This may be because part of the association between smoking and demographic and socio-economic factors are mediated by more proximal determinants including emotional end behavioral problems and psychosocial factors.

Discussion

In young Turkish adults, smoking was rekated with many of the well-known determinants of smoking behavior. With the exception of Muslim identity, cultural factors were not related.

The prevalence of smoking of young urban Turkish men in the Netherlands was higher than that of Dutch young men living in large cities [37], and was lower than that of first-generation Turkish male migrants [28]. For Turkish young women the smoking rate was similar to that of their Dutch peers in large cities [37], and higher than that of first-generation Turkish female migrants [28]. Compared overall with Turkish adults living in Turkey (men 51%, women 11%) [38], and with those in large cities in Turkey, young Turkish men's prevalence of smoking in the Netherlands was lower (men in Ankara 65%, and Istanbul 64%). Findings for women were mixed (women in Ankara 8%, and Istanbul 56%) [39, 40]. In Istanbul, the prevalence of smoking was especially high among young adults [40].

Studies of determinants of smoking among young adults in Western countries showed similar positive associations as this study for determinants as low education [5, 16, 41], living with children (especially for lower socio-economic groups) [5, 16, 42], emotional problems and behavioral problems [5, 11, 16, 43], and low self-esteem [16]. However, findings were different for some of the determinants. For example, previous findings were mixed with regard to differences in smoking behavior between young adults with and without a partner [16, 41]. In another study, smoking behavior depended on the smoking behavior of the partner [5]. Similarly, sex differences have been found for unemployment, with a stronger association with smoking among young women than among young men [6, 12]. In our study, the number of frequent unemployed may have been too small to reveal sex differences.

In line with our findings, most studies of the determinants of smoking behavior have shown similarities between ethnic groups [12, 17, 19, 21, 25, 42, 44, 45]. Many of these studies were among adolescents, and emphasized the start of smoking and the transition from experimental smoking to regular smoking. However, as most of these studies were conducted in the US, little is known about smoking determinants across ethnic minorities in Europe.

The strongest determinant of smoking in our study was level of education. Whereas smoking in Western countries is more prevalent among those with a lower educational level [4], in developing countries there is either no association, or the association is precisely the opposite. The diffusion of innovations theory predicts that as cigarette use spreads through a population and begins to decline, socio-economic patterns of smoking shift from a concentration among higher socio-economic groups (positive gradient) to one among lower socioeconomic groups (negative gradient) [46, 47]. It is still unclear how long it will take before the negative gradient in smoking found in Western populations also appears among ethnic minorities [18]. In the US and Canada, the negative gradient was more pronounced for second-generation migrants than for first-generation ones; for third-generation migrants it was even more pronounced [18, 48]. Our results showed already a clear negative gradient for Turkish young adults (migrant offspring) in the Netherlands.

With the exception of Muslim identification, the cultural determinants in this study were not related with smoking prevalence. It is possible that those with a strong personal identification as Muslims are stricter in their adherenc to Islamic laws, which forbid the use of intoxicants, addictive substances, and substances harmful to health [25]. Unlike our findings, three previous studies found more smokers among black Americans who experienced discrimination [24].

One of the strengths of this study is that it is the first to report on smoking behavior and its determinants in young adult migrant offspring in continental Europe. However, while it covered a wide range of well-known determinants, some were not included, such as self-efficacy, material deprivation, attitudes towards smoking behavior and cessation, and smoking behavior of peers and family. For factors of social cognition theories, also many similarities were found among first-generation migrants in the Netherlands compared with Western populations [49]. Further, although all associations were cross-sectional and thus useful for distinguishing daily smokers from never smokers, they were unsuitable for assessing causality. Unfortunately, the group of former smokers was too small to allow for the separate analyses that would provide greater insight into the predictors of smoking cessation.

Our results nonetheless provide insight into several issues relevant to prevention. Firstly, most of the determinants were similar to those found for young adults in Western countries. This suggests that (preventive) interventions targeting populations at risk on the basis of the determinants we studied, might also be useful for young migrant Turkish adults. However, this suggestion will have to be examined further. Secondly, our finding of a strong negative socio-economic gradient for both men and women suggests 1.) that interventions to help smoking cessation should focus especially on the lower educated, and 2.) that prevention of smoking should focus especially on adolescents in lower vocational schools. Thirdly, at 64%, smoking prevalence was particularly high among Turkish women with children. The harmful effects of passive smoking for children make this of particular concern [50]. Pregnant Turkish women and young Turkish mothers should therefore be a priority group for smoking interventions. Finally, as smoking is more prevalent among Turkish young adults with a partner, it would be useful to involve partners in smoking cessation programs.

Conclusion

This study shows many of the well-known determinants of smoking in Western countries also to be determinants in young adult migrant offspring. Prevalence of smoking was high and warrants intervention and prevention. In this respect, two groups are of special interest: adults with low educational level and women with children.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO grant number 261-98-912). The authors would like to thank Dr. M. Huisman for his comments.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center
(2)
Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Erasmus MC-Sophia, University Medical Center

References

  1. Pierce JP: International comparisons of trends in cigarette smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health. 1989, 79: 152-157.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Murray CJ, Lopez AD: Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 1997, 349: 1436-1442. 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)07495-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Giskes K, Kunst AE, Benach J, Borrell C, Costa G, Dahl E, Dalstra JA, Federico B, Helmert U, Judge K, Lahelma E, Moussa K, Ostergren PO, Platt S, Prattala R, Rasmussen NK, Mackenbach JP: Trends in smoking behaviour between 1985 and 2000 in nine European countries by education. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005, 59: 395-401. 10.1136/jech.2004.025684.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Huisman M, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP: Educational inequalities in smoking among men and women aged 16 years and older in 11 European countries. Tob Control. 2005, 14: 106-113. 10.1136/tc.2004.008573.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Tucker JS, Ellickson PL, Klein DJ: Predictors of the transition to regular smoking during adolescence and young adulthood. J Adolesc Health. 2003, 32: 314-324. 10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00709-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Reine I, Novo M, Hammarstrom A: Does the association between ill health and unemployment differ between young people and adults? Results from a 14-year follow-up study with a focus on psychological health and smoking. Public Health. 2004, 118: 337-345. 10.1016/j.puhe.2003.10.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Tyas SL, Pederson LL: Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. Tob Control. 1998, 7: 409-420.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Steptoe A, Wardle J: Locus of control and health behaviour revisited: a multivariate analysis of young adults from 18 countries. Br J Psychol. 2001, 92: 659-672. 10.1348/000712601162400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Laaksonen M, Prattala R, Karisto A: Patterns of unhealthy behaviour in Finland. Eur J Public Health. 2001, 11: 294-300. 10.1093/eurpub/11.3.294.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Breslau N, Kilbey M, Andreski P: Nicotine dependence, major depression, and anxiety in young adults. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991, 48: 1069-1074.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Williams JM, Ziedonis D: Addressing tobacco among individuals with a mental illness or an addiction. Addict Behav. 2004, 29: 1067-1083. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.03.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Weden MM, Astone NM, Bishai D: Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in smoking cessation associated with employment and joblessness through young adulthood in the US. Soc Sci Med. 2006, 62: 303-316. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bhopal R, Vettini A, Hunt S, Wiebe S, Hanna L, Amos A: Review of prevalence data in, and evaluation of methods for cross cultural adaptation of, UK surveys on tobacco and alcohol in ethnic minority groups. BMJ. 2004, 328: 76-80A. 10.1136/bmj.37963.426308.9A.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Reijneveld SA: Reported health, lifestyles, and use of health care of first generation immigrants in The Netherlands: do socioeconomic factors explain their adverse position?. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998, 52: 298-304.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Lindstrom M, Sundquist J: Ethnic differences in daily smoking in Malmo, Sweden: Varying influence of psychosocial and economic factors. Eur J Public Health. 2002, 12: 287-294. 10.1093/eurpub/12.4.287.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu MC, Davies M, Kandel DB: Epidemiology and correlates of daily smoking and nicotine dependence among young adults in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2006, 96: 299-308. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.057232.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Griesler PC, Kandel DB, Davies M: Ethnic differences in predictors of initiation and persistence of adolescent cigarette smoking in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Nicotine Tob Res. 2002, 4: 79-93. 10.1080/14622200110103197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Acevedo-Garcia D, Pan J, Jun HJ, Osypuk TL, Emmons KM: The effect of immigrant generation on smoking. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 61: 1223-1242. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.01.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kandel DB, Kiros GE, Schaffran C, Hu MC: Racial/ethnic differences in cigarette smoking initiation and progression to daily smoking: a multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. 2004, 94: 128-135.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Perez-Stable EJ, Ramirez A, Villareal R, Talavera GA, Trapido E, Suarez L, Marti J, McAlister A: Cigarette smoking behavior among US Latino men and women from different countries of origin. Am J Public Health. 2001, 91: 1424-1430.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Ma GX, Shive S, Tan Y, Toubbeh J: Prevalence and predictors of tobacco use among Asian Americans in the Delaware Valley region. Am J Public Health. 2002, 92: 1013-1020.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Salant T, Lauderdale DS: Measuring culture: a critical review of acculturation and health in Asian immigrant populations. Soc Sci Med. 2003, 57: 71-90. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00300-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Song YJ, Hofstetter CR, Hovell MF, Paik HY, Park HR, Lee J, Irvin V: Acculturation and health risk behaviors among Californians of Korean descent. Prev Med. 2004, 39: 147-156. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.01.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Williams DR, Neighbors HW, Jackson JS: Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Health: Findings From Community Studies. Am J Public Health. 2003, 93: 200-208.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Bush J, White M, Kai J, Rankin J, Bhopal R: Understanding influences on smoking in Bangladeshi and Pakistani adults: community based, qualitative study. BMJ. 2003, 326: 962-10.1136/bmj.326.7396.962.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Berry JW, Poortinga YH, Segall MH, Dasen PR: Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. 1992, New York, NY, US, Cambridge University Press, xiv, 459-Google Scholar
  27. Landrine H, Klonoff EA: Culture Change and Ethnic-Minority Health Behavior: An Operant Theory of Acculturation. J Behav Med. 2004, 27: 527-555. 10.1007/s10865-004-0002-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Uitewaal PJM, Manna DR, Bruijnzeels MA, Hoes AW, Thomas S: Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, other cardiovascular risk factors, and cardiovascular disease in Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in North West Europe: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2004, 39: 1068-1076. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.04.009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Nierkens V: Smoking in a multicultural society: implications for prevention. PhD Thesis. 2006, Amsterdam, Academic Medical Center, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Bengi-Arslan L, Verhulst FC, van der Ende J, Erol N: Understanding childhood (problem) behaviors from a cultural perspective: comparison of problem behaviors and competencies in Turkish immigrant, Turkish and Dutch children. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1997, 32: 477-484.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. van Oort FVA, Joung IMA, van der Ende J, Mackenbach JP, Verhulst FC, Crijnen AAM: Internalising and externalising behaviours in young adults: Dutch natives and Turkish migrants in the Netherlands. Ethn Health. 2006, 11: 133-151. 10.1080/13557850500460280.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA: Manual for the ASEBA Adult Forms & Profiles. 2003, Burlington VT, University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth & FamiliesGoogle Scholar
  33. Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT: The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981, 22: 337-356. 10.2307/2136676.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg M: Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. 1989, Middletown, CT, Wesleyan University Press, Revised editionGoogle Scholar
  35. Phalet K, van Lotringen C, Entzinger H: Islam in the multicultural society [Islam in de Multiculturele samenleving]. 2000, Utrecht, European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations, Utrecht UniversityGoogle Scholar
  36. Spiegelman D, Hertzmark E: Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 162: 199-200. 10.1093/aje/kwi188.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. van Leest LATM, van Dis SJ, Verschuren WMM: Cardiovascular diseases in non-Western immigrants in the Netherlands. An exploratory study into lifestyle, risk factors, morbidity and mortality [Hart- en vaatziekten bij allochtonen in Nederland. Een cijfermatige verkenning naar leefstijl en risicofactoren]. 2002, Bilthoven, National Institute for Public Health and the EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
  38. Satman I, Yilmaz T, Sengul A, Salman S, Salman F, Uygur S, Bastar I, Tutuncu Y, Sargin M, Dinccag N, Karsidag K, Kalaca S, Ozcan C, King H: Population-Based Study of Diabetes and Risk Characteristics in Turkey: Results of the Turkish Diabetes Epidemiology Study (TURDEP). Diabetes Care. 2002, 25: 1551-1556.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Koycu B, Kara T, Camlidag O, Aydinli R, Verschuren WM, van Montfrans GA: Risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in Turks in Amsterdam and in Ankara [Risicofactoren voor hart-en vaatziekten bij Turken in Amsterdam en in Ankara]. Ned Tijdschr Geneesk. 1997, 141: 882-888.Google Scholar
  40. Ogel K, Tamar D, Ozmen E, Aker T, Sagduyu A, Boratav C, Liman O: Prevalence of Cigarette Use in Istanbul [Istanbul Ornekleminde Sigara Kullanim Yayginligi]. Bagimlik Dergisi. 2003, 4: 105-108.Google Scholar
  41. Graham H, Francis B, Inskip HM, Harman J, SWS Study Group: Socioeconomic lifecourse influences on women's smoking status in early adulthood. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006, 60: 228-233. 10.1136/jech.2005.039784.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Jun HJ, Subramanian SV, Gortmaker S, Kawachi I: Socioeconomic disadvantage, parenting responsibility, and women's smoking in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2004, 94: 2170-2176.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Breslau N, Novak SP, Kessler RC: Psychiatric disorders and stages of smoking. Biol Psychiatry. 2004, 55: 69-76. 10.1016/S0006-3223(03)00317-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Nichols TR, Birnbaum AS, Birnel S, Botvin GJ: Perceived smoking environment and smoking initiation among multi-ethnic urban girls. J Adolesc Health. 2006, 38: 369-375. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.04.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Gritz ER, Prokhorov AV, Hudmon KS, Chamberlain RM, Taylor WC, DiClemente CC, Johnston DA, Hu S, Jones LA, Jones MM, Rosenblum CK, Ayars CL, Amos CI: Cigarette smoking in a multiethnic population of youth: methods and baseline findings. Prev Med. 1998, 27: 365-384. 10.1006/pmed.1998.0300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lopez AD, Collishaw NE, Piha T: A descriptive model of the cigarette epidemic in developed countries. Tob Control. 1994, 3: 242-247.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers E, Schoemaker F: Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. 1971, London, Collier MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  48. Georgiades K, Boyle MH, Duku E, Racine Y: Tobacco use among immigrant and nonimmigrant adolescents: individual and family level influences. J Adolesc Health. 2006, 38: 443.e1-443.e7. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.02.007.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  49. Nierkens V, Stronks K, van Oel CJ, de Vries H: Beliefs of Turkish and Moroccan immigrants in The Netherlands about smoking cessation: implications for prevention. Health Educ Res. 2005, 20: 622-634. 10.1093/her/cyh026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. DiFranza JR, Aligne CA, Weitzman M: Prenatal and Postnatal Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Children's Health. Pediatrics. 2004, 113: 1007-1015.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/294/prepub

Copyright

© van Oort et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2006

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement