Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking habits are still increasing in Italy

  • Giuseppe Verlato1, 14Email author,
  • Simone Accordini1,
  • Giang Nguyen1,
  • Pierpaolo Marchetti1,
  • Lucia Cazzoletti1,
  • Marcello Ferrari2,
  • Leonardo Antonicelli3,
  • Francesco Attena4,
  • Valeria Bellisario5,
  • Roberto Bono5,
  • Lamberto Briziarelli6,
  • Lucio Casali7,
  • Angelo Guido Corsico8,
  • Alessandro Fois9,
  • MariaGrazia Panico10,
  • Pavilio Piccioni11,
  • Pietro Pirina9,
  • Simona Villani12,
  • Gabriele Nicolini13 and
  • Roberto de Marco1
BMC Public Health201414:879

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-879

Received: 7 May 2014

Accepted: 18 August 2014

Published: 27 August 2014

Abstract

Background

Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking habits have stabilized in many Western countries. This study aimed at evaluating whether socioeconomic disparities in smoking habits are still enlarging in Italy and at comparing the impact of education and occupation.

Methods

In the frame of the GEIRD study (Gene Environment Interactions in Respiratory Diseases) 10,494 subjects, randomly selected from the general population aged 20–44 years in seven Italian centres, answered a screening questionnaire between 2007 and 2010 (response percentage = 57.2%). In four centres a repeated cross-sectional survey was performed: smoking prevalence recorded in GEIRD was compared with prevalence recorded between 1998 and 2000 in the Italian Study of Asthma in Young Adults (ISAYA).

Results

Current smoking was twice as prevalent in people with a primary/secondary school certificate (40-43%) compared with people with an academic degree (20%), and among unemployed and workmen (39%) compared with managers and clerks (20-22%). In multivariable analysis smoking habits were more affected by education level than by occupation. From the first to the second survey the prevalence of ever smokers markedly decreased among housewives, managers, businessmen and free-lancers, while ever smoking became even more common among unemployed (time-occupation interaction: p = 0.047). At variance, the increasing trend in smoking cessation was not modified by occupation.

Conclusion

Smoking prevalence has declined in Italy during the last decade among the higher socioeconomic classes, but not among the lower. This enlarging socioeconomic inequality mainly reflects a different trend in smoking initiation.

Keywords

Smoking initiation Smoking cessation Trends Socioeconomic status Italy

Background

The smoking epidemic is fading away in both sexes in most developed countries [14]. Not only smoking prevalence is shrinking, but also the average number of cigarettes consumed daily by people who still smoke [3, 5].

In this late stage of smoking epidemic the prevalence of current smoking generally becomes inversely related to socioeconomic status [6], usually evaluated by education level, occupation and income. Probability of smoking initiation is higher in people with low education while probability of quitting smoking is higher in highly educated people [712]. Educational inequalities in smoking habits affect both sexes in Northern Europe, while they are apparently restricted to men in Southern Europe [7]: however, recently the prevalence of current smokers has been reported to decrease with increasing educational level both in Italian men and women, although the trend was significant only in men [13]. As regards occupation, blue collars and unemployed have a higher risk of starting smoking and a lower risk of quitting than white collars [1417]. In most European countries income is less important than either education [18, 19] or employment status [16] in predicting smoking habits. At variance, the magnitude of income- and education-related inequalities is similar among women in Southern Europe [18] and in Hungary [10], i.e. in less economically developed areas.

Socioeconomic inequalities in smoking habits have been enlarging since the Seventies in most Western countries [4, 2025], including Italy [8, 13]. However during the last decade the trend is somewhat confusing: indeed in the 3rd millennium in Australia social disadvantage did not increase among current smokers according to two national surveys out of three [26]. Likewise educational inequalities remained stable in Canada according to Reid et al. [5], while they increased according to other studies [27, 28]. In The Netherlands, educational inequalities in smoking prevalence widened in women, but not in men [19]. Similarly in Italy the prevalence of current smokers was lower in women with primary school education in 2000, but this socioeconomic pattern tended to reverse during the last decade [13]. According to the HBSC study [29] absolute differences in daily smoking between secondary school students in vocational or academic tracks increased in Southern Europe (Croatia and Italy) while decreasing in Central Europe (Germany and The Netherlands). In the Minnesota Heart Survey the absolute difference in smoking prevalence between people with higher or lower education peaked during the Nineties and decreased thereafter [3].

Another point under discussion is whether socioeconomic inequalities in smoking habits widen primarily because of increasing differences in smoking initiation [8] or smoking cessation [20] or both [19].

The present work aimed at 1) comparing the effect of education level and occupation on smoking initiation and smoking cessation; 2) investigating whether occupation modified trends in smoking prevalence, separately analyzing the effects on smoking initiation and cessation.

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional survey was performed between 2007 and 2010 in the frame of the GEIRD study (Gene Environment Interactions in Respiratory Diseases) in seven Italian centres: three centres (Torino, Pavia, Verona) were located in Northern Italy, and four (Sassari, Ancona, Terni, Salerno) in Central-Southern Italy [30, 31]. In each centre a sample of about 3,000 subjects, with a male to female ratio of one, was selected from the general population aged 20–44 years, using local health authority registry. Overall 18,357 subjects were administered a screening questionnaire by mail. Non-responders were contacted again, first twice by mail and then by phone, achieving a final response percentage of 57.2% (10,494/18,357). For this reason, in each centre the screening phase lasted about two years, from sample selection to the last phone contact, so that age at interview ranged from 20 to 47 year. A full description of the study design is given at http://www.geird.org.

In a repeated cross-sectional study smoking prevalence observed in GEIRD was compared with prevalence recorded between 1998–2000 in the frame of the Italian Study of Asthma in Young Adults (ISAYA) [15], using data from the four centres participating in both surveys (Turin, Pavia, Verona, Sassari). Of note, ISAYA and GEIRD were multicentre cross-sectional surveys on respiratory diseases, carried out by the same research team on random samples of young adults, using the same design, sampling strategy and questions on smoking habits. In the 4 centres participating in both studies the number of participants was 8931 in the first survey and 5162 in the second one.

Questionnaire

The screening questionnaire, used in GEIRD [available at http://www.geird.org], was the same questionnaire used in ISAYA [32] with the addition of questions on education level, outdoor exposure, history of asthma, rhinitis, chronic bronchitis and eczema, and life impairment.

Subjects were considered ever smokers if they reported to have smoked at least one cigarette per day or one cigar a week for one year. Ever smokers were divided into ex-smokers, if they had stopped smoking for at least one month, or smokers otherwise. The remaining subjects were considered never smokers. If a subject was suspected, but not deemed, to be an ever smoker due to contradictory responses on smoking habits, he/she was excluded from the analysis. To evaluate cumulative smoke exposure, pack-years were calculated as years of smoking multiplied by the average daily consumption of 20-cigarette packs. Questions on smoking habits had been previously validated in one participating centre (Verona) [33].

Statistical analysis

Significance of differences in the proportion of current smokers and ex-smokers was investigated by the chi-squared test. As quantitative variables (age at start smoking, cigarettes smoked daily, pack-years) were asymmetrically distributed and presented substantial heteroskedasticity, significance of differences was assessed by non-parametric tests (Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney rank-sum test or Kruskal-Wallis rank test).

To separately investigate smoking initiation and smoking cessation, two separate logistic regression models were applied to estimate, respectively, 1) the probability of being an ever smoker in the whole sample (initiation ratio), 2) the probability of being an ex-smoker among ever smokers (quit ratio).

In the cross-sectional analyses, comprising data from all the seven centres participating in GEIRD cross-sectional survey, two-level logistic models were used with level-1 units (subjects) nested into level-2 units (GEIRD centres). Gender, age (20–29, 30–39, > = 40 years), education level (primary school, lower secondary school, upper secondary school, university), occupation (clerk, housewife, manager, businessman, free-lancer, workman, unemployed, student, other) and geographic area (Northern vs. Central-Southern Italy) were introduced in the model as explanatory variables, while season of response and type of contact (postal vs. phone) were also considered as potential confounders. To counteract possible selection bias [34], the percentile rank of cumulative response was also computed: in each centre responders were ordered according to response date and were attributed a percentile rank, taking as 100% the total number of eligible subjects in that centre [31]. This variable was then introduced in the model as a measure of promptness to respond. Significance of the interaction between sex and education was also tested. The influences of education and occupation on smoking habits were compared by computing the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [35] of models including either education or occupation.

In the repeated cross-sectional analyses, considering the four centres participating in both ISAYA and GEIRD, “centre” was introduced in the models as an explanatory variable along with time period (ISAYA/GEIRD), gender, age, occupation. Season at the interview, type of contact and percentile rank of cumulative response were taken into account as potential confounders. The latter variable was used to counteract possible selection bias, as response percentage had decreased from the first (72.7%) to the second (57.2%) survey and this trend likely affected prevalence estimates [34]. Significance of the interactions between time and either sex, age class, or occupation was also tested to verify whether temporal trends in smoking habits varied as a function of the latter variables.

Results

Cross-sectional survey

In the seven centres participating in the GEIRD cross-sectional study, information on smoking habits was available in 10,289 subjects (98%). Of these, current smokers were 2854 (27.7%) and ex-smokers 1662 (16.2%). The prevalence of current smokers was higher in men (32.6%) than in women (23.3%), while the difference in ex-smoker prevalence was smaller (17.4% vs. 15.0% respectively) (Table 1).
Table 1

Smoking habits in 10,289 subjects participating in GEIRD cross-sectional survey in 2007–2010

 

Never smokers

Ex-smokers

Current smokers

p value

Sexb

   

p < 0.001a

  Men

2451 (50%)

852 (17.4%)

1600 (32.6%)

 

  Women

3320 (61.7%)

810 (15.0%)

1253 (23.3%)

 

Ageb

   

p < 0.001

  20-29 years

1707 (59.8%)

276 (9.7%)

872 (30.5%)

 

  30-39 years

2525 (56.4%)

759 (17.0%)

1193 (26.6%)

 

  40-47 years

1520 (51.9%)

627 (21.4%)

782 (26.7%)

 

Educationb

   

p < 0.001

  Primary school

45 (43.2%)

14 (13.5%)

45 (43.3%)

 

  Lower secondary

763 (40.3%)

374 (19.7%)

757 (40.0%)

 

  Upper secondary

3110 (56.6%)

887 (16.2%)

1493 (27.2%)

 

  Degree

1816 (66.2%)

382 (13.9%)

544 (19.8%)

 

Occupationb

   

p < 0.001

  Clerk

2448 (60.4%)

703 (17.4%)

899 (22.2%)

 

  Housewife

430 (58.8%)

118 (16.1%)

183 (25.0%)

 

  Manager

101 (58.7%)

37 (21.5%)

34 (19.8%)

 

  Businessman

186 (50.0%)

70 (18.8%)

116 (31.2%)

 

  Free-lancer

692 (54.5%)

201 (15.8%)

377 (29.7%)

 

  Workman

616 (41.8%)

282 (19.2%)

573 (39.0%)

 

  Unemployed

309 (46.7%)

93 (14.0%)

260 (39.3%)

 

  Student

756 (67.5%)

81 (7.2%)

283 (25.3%)

 

  Retired

18 (56%)

5 (16%)

9 (28%)

 

  Other job

186 (51.6%)

68 (18.8%)

107 (29.6%)

 

Site of residenceb

   

p = 0.002

Downtown

1794 (54.9%)

496 (15.2%)

978 (29.9%)

 

  Suburbs

2285 (56.4%)

662 (16.3%)

1103 (27.2%)

 

  Countryside

568 (54.4%)

205 (19.6%)

272 (26.0%)

 

Geographic area

   

p = 0.001

Northern Italy

2163 (56.4%)

676 (17.6%)

999 (26.0%)

 

Central-Southern

3610 (55.9%)

986 (15.3%)

1855 (28.8%)

 

a: P values were computed by chi-squared test.

b: information on sex, age, education, occupation, site of residence was missing respectively in 3, 28, 59, 48, 1922 subjects. Of note, the Ancona sample (n = 1866) was not asked about their site of residence.

Current smoking slightly decreased with advancing age, while past smoking largely increased as expected. Current smoking was twice as prevalent in people with a primary/secondary school certificate (40-43%) compared with people with an academic degree (20%), and among unemployed and workmen (39%) compared with managers and clerks (20-22%). Conversely ex-smokers were rather rare among people with only primary school license and among students and unemployed, and quite common among managers. The prevalence of current smokers was slightly higher in urban areas and in Central-Southern Italy, while the prevalence of ex-smokers was somewhat higher in rural areas and in Northern Italy (Table 1).

Men smoked 2.7 cigarettes per day more than women, and the number of cigarettes smoked daily increased with advancing age (Table 2). Smokers with lower education had started smoking at an earlier age and consumed more cigarettes per day than smokers with higher education. As a consequence, cumulative smoking exposure at the age of 30 years was nearly doubled in current smokers with only primary school license with respect to those with a university degree. Workmen and unemployed, when current smokers, had started smoking one year earlier, consumed three-four cigarettes per day more than managers, free-lancers and clerks. As a consequence, cumulative smoke exposure at 30 years was lower by about three pack-years in the latter groups (Table 2).In multivariable analysis, the odds of being an ever smoker were significantly increased in men with respect to women (p < 0.001), while the odds of being an ex-smoker among ever smokers were similar in both sexes (p = 0.133) (Figure 1). At variance, age strongly affected the process of quitting smoking but exerted only minor influences on the process of starting smoking.
Table 2

Age at start smoking, number of cigarettes smoked daily and pack-years smoked at 30 year in 2854 current smokers retrieved in GEIRD cross-sectional survey, as a function of sex, age, education level, occupation, site of residence and climatic region

 

No. of smokers

Age at start smoking

Cigarettes/day

Pack-years smoked at 30a

Sex

 

p = 0.111b

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

  Men

1600

17.3 ± 3.7 (17, 15–18)

13.8 ± 10.7 (10, 8–20)

9.7 ± 8.3 (8.3, 4.5-13)

  Women

1253

17.5 ± 3.8 (17, 15–19)

11.1 ± 6.7 (10, 6–15)

7.7 ± 5.5 (6.5, 3.8-10.5)

Age

 

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

p = 0.009

  20-29 years

872

16.6 ± 2.5 (16, 15–18)

10.4 ± 6.5 (10, 5–15)

-----

  30-39 years

1193

17.6 ± 3.7 (17, 15–19)

13.1 ± 7.8 (10, 8–20)

8.5 ± 7.6 (7.5, 4–11.3)

  40-47 years

782

17.9 ± 4.7 (17, 15–20)

14.1 ± 8.7 (13, 8–20)

9.3 ± 6.7 (7.8, 4.2-13)

Education

 

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

  Primary school

45

16.0 ± 4.3 (15.5, 14–18)

17.1 ± 11.4 (15, 10–20)

12.8 ± 10.3 (10.5,5.5-17)

  Lower secondary

757

16.5 ± 3.3 (16, 15–18)

15.8 ± 10.6 (15, 10–20)

11.2 ± 8.8 (10, 6–15)

  Upper secondary

1493

17.5 ± 3.6 (17, 15–19)

11.6 ± 8.6 (10, 6–20)

8.0 ± 6.4 (7, 3.6-11.3)

  Degree

544

18.3 ± 4.2 (18, 16–20)

10.2 ± 6.7 (10, 5–15)

6.6 ± 4.9 (5.6, 3–9.6)

Occupation

 

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

  Clerk

899

17.9 ± 4.1 (17, 15–19)

11.2 ± 7.1 (10, 5–15)

7.4 ± 5.4 (6, 3–10.5)

  Housewife

183

17.4 ± 4.1 (17, 15–19)

12.9 ± 7.4 (12, 10–15)

8.8 ± 6.3 (7.1, 4.9-12)

  Manager

34

17.8 ± 5.0 (17, 15–20)

11.6 ± 7.9 (10, 8–15)

8.4 ± 7.6 (6, 4.5-8)

  Businessman

116

17.8 ± 3.4 (17, 15–20)

14.4 ± 8.7 (15, 9–20)

9.1 ± 6.3 (8.4, 5–12)

  Free-lancer

377

18.0 ± 4.0 (17, 16–20)

11.9 ± 7.0 (10, 6–15)

7.7 ± 5.4 (7, 3.5-11.3)

  Workman

573

16.8 ± 3.2 (16, 15–18)

15.5 ± 13.8 (15, 10–20)

10.9 ± 10.2 (9, 5.9-14)

  Unemployed

260

16.9 ± 3.6 (16, 15–18)

14.4 ± 8.7 (12, 10–20)

10.8 ± 8.3 (9, 5–14)

  Student

283

16.7 ± 2.4 (17, 15–18)

8.8 ± 5.1 (10, 5–10)

7.5 ± 4.5 (8.1, 3.5-11.3)

  Retired

9

14.7 ± 3.1 (15, 13–15)

18.0 ± 7.9 (18, 14–25)

14.2 ± 8.7(13.1,7.4-19.4)

  Other job

107

16.7 ± 3.7 (16, 15–18)

13.2 ± 8.1 (10, 8–20)

9.8 ± 6.8 (8.1, 5–12.8)

Site of residencec

 

p =0.238

p = 0.089

p = 0.055

  Downtown

978

17.5 ± 3.8 (17, 15–19)

12.5 ± 10.0 (10, 7–18)

8.8 ± 8.4 (7.5, 3.9-12)

  Suburbs

1103

17.4 ± 3.8 (17, 15–19)

12.7 ± 9.6 (10, 7–18)

8.9 ± 7.0 (7.5, 4–12)

  Countryside

272

17.4 ± 4.1 (16, 15–18)

13.4 ± 7.8 (11, 8–20)

9.6 ± 6.3 (8, 5–14)

Geographic area

 

p =0.474

p =0.241

p =0.697

  Northern Italy

999

17.3 ± 3.6 (17, 15–19)

12.7 ± 9.8 (10, 7–16)

8.8 ± 6.6 (7, 3.9-12)

  Central-Southern

1855

17.5 ± 3.9 (17, 15–19)

12.3 ± 7.9 (10, 6–17)

8.8 ± 7.7 (7.5, 4.2-12)

Data are expressed as mean ± SD (median, interquartile range).

a: Pack-years smoked by 30 yrs were computed by multiplying the average daily consumption of 20-cigarette packs by years from age at starting smoking to 30, in current smokers aged 30 years or more.

b: P values were computed by Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney rank-sum test or by Kruskal-Wallis rank test.

c: the Ancona sample (n = 1866) was not asked about their site of residence.

Figure 1

Analysis of risk factors for smoking initiation and cessation in the GEIRD cross-sectional study, performed in 2007–2010. Columns are Odds Ratios (ORs), bars are 95% confidence intervals. The ORs of being an ever smoker (to the right) or an ex-smoker if ever smokers (to the left) were computed by two-level logistic regression models, comprising sex, age, education level, occupation, geographic area, season of response, percentile rank of cumulative response and type of contact. Retired (n=32) were not considered in the logistic model.

Education markedly affected both starting and quitting smoking: with respect to people with a university degree, the odds of being an ever smoker were more than doubled in people with a primary or lower secondary school license, while the odds of being an ex-smoker among ever smokers were greatly reduced especially in people with primary school education only (p < 0.001). Starting and quitting smoking were largely affected also by occupation. Unemployed presented the highest initiation ratio and the lowest quit ratio. A similar, although less pronounced, pattern was observed also among workmen and free lancers, who had higher odds of being an ever smoker and lower odds of being an ex-smoker as compared to clerks. The odds of being an ex-smoker was the highest among managers. A model including only education minimized the AIC with respect to a model considering only occupation. The difference was substantial when evaluating risk factors for smoking initiation (13673 vs. 13777) but only minor when addressing smoking cessation (5674 vs. 5678).

A significant quantitative interaction between sex and education level was detected when addressing smoking initiation (p = 0.002), but not when studying smoking cessation (0.782). With respect to men with university education, the odds of being an ever smoker was more than three times higher in men with lower education (Odds Ratio (OR) =3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-6.4 in those with primary school license and OR = 3.1, 2.6-3.8 with lower secondary education), while in women a two-fold increase was recorded (OR = 1.5, 0.8-2.8 and OR = 2.0, 1.6-2.4 respectively).

Repeated cross-sectional survey

The main socio-demographic characteristics of the two samples, collected in the same four centres in the frame of ISAYA (1998–2000) and GEIRD cross-sectional (2007–10) are presented in Table 3. The second sample was slightly older and presented a slightly higher proportion of women. Smoking prevalence declined in both sexes during the last decade, from 39.6% to 32.3% in men and from 31.0% to 21.6% in women. The decline was very limited in people aged 20–29 years (from 35.5% to 29.0%) and particularly pronounced in people aged 40 years and over (from 36.9% to 24.6%). As regards occupation, smoking prevalence decreased remarkably among managers, businessmen, free-lancers and clerks (respectively from 35.1%, 41.9%, 37.9%, 31.7% to 20.5%, 31.3%, 27.6%, 21.8%), but only slightly among unemployed and students (respectively from 39.1%, 28.4% to 36.1%, 24.1%). Intermediate decreases were recorded among workmen and housewives (respectively from 44.4%, 29.8% to 37.1%, 22.4%).
Table 3

Main socio-demographic characteristics and smoking status of people participating to either ISAYA (1998–2000) or GEIRD (2007–2010) in four centers

 

ISAYA

GEIRD

p-value

 

(n = 8931)

(n = 5162)

 

Centres

  

<0.001

  Verona

2166 (24.3%)

1746 (33.8%)

 

  Pavia

2444 (27.4%)

966 (18.7%)

 

  Turin

2266 (25.4%)

1205 (23.3%)

 

  Sassari

2055 (23.0%)

1245 (24.1%)

 

Sex

  

<0.001

  Men

4439 (49.7%)

2397 (46.4%)

 

  Women

4492 (50.3%)

2765 (53.6%)

 

Occupation

  

<0.001

  Clerk

3444 (38.7%)

2114 (41.3%)

 

  Housewife

786 (8.8%)

352 (6.9%)

 

  Manager

151 (1.7%)

90 (1.8%)

 

  Businessman

268 (3.0%)

153 (3.0%)

 

  Free-lancer

901 (10.1%)

570 (11.1%)

 

  Workman

1381 (15.5%)

777 (15.2%)

 

  Unemployed

564 (6.3%)

316 (6.2%)

 

  Student

864 (9.7%)

549 (10.7%)

 

  Retired

42 (0.5%)

20 (0.4%)

 

  Other job

498 (5.6%)

175 (3.4%)

 

Smoking habits

  

<0.001

 Never smokers

4356 (49.0%)

2809 (55.4%)

 

 Ex-smokers

1404 (15.8%)

915 (18.0%)

 

 Current smokers

3138 (35.3%)

1347 (26.6%)

 

Age (mean ± SD)

33.4 ± 6.8

34.8 ± 7.1

<0.001

The average number of cigarettes (mean ± SD), consumed daily by current smokers, significantly declined in men from 15.3 ± 8.7 (median 15, interquartile range 10–20) to 13.7 ± 8.4 (12, 8–20) (p < 0.001), while this decline was hardly appreciable, if any, in women (from 11.6 ± 7.3 to 10.9 ± 6.9 cigarettes/day, p = 0.117). Age at smoking initiation, instead, did not change from the first survey (17.3 ± 3.3 years) to the second one (17.4 ± 3.9 years) (p = 0.079) in both sexes.

The number of cigarettes smoked daily significantly declined from the first to the second survey among clerks (from 12.8 ± 8.2 to 11.1 ± 7.3 cigarettes/day; p = 0.001) and free-lancers (from 14.5 ± 8.2 to 11.5 ± 6.8 cigarettes/day; p = 0.002). Non-significant decreases of 1–2 cigarettes per day were recorded also among managers, businessmen and students. Of note, smoking intensity did not vary among workmen and unemployed and even tended to increase among housewives, from 11.9 ± 7.2 to 13.5 ± 8.5 cigarettes/day.

Also in multivariable analysis the OR of being an ever smoker decreased from the first to the second survey (Table 4). The declining trend varied as a function of gender (time-sex interaction: p = 0.029), age class (time-age interaction: p < 0.001) and occupation (time-occupation interaction: p = 0.047): the time-related decrease in ever smoking was slightly larger in women than in men, and it was particularly pronounced in people aged > =40 years, while being not significant in people younger than 30 years. As regards occupation, the declining trend was particularly evident in housewives, managers, businessmen and free-lancers, while starting smoking became even more common among unemployed.
Table 4

Analysis of temporal trends and relevant risk factors in smoking initiation and cessation in the four centers participating to both ISAYA (1998–2000) and GEIRD (2007–2010)

 

OR of being ever smoker (95% CI)

OR of being ex-smoker

 

N = 10,263

(95% CI) N = 4,468

Time

 

p < 0.001

  ISAYA 1998-2000

 

1

  GEIRD 2007-2010

 

1.32 (1.18-1.48)

 

Interaction sex*time: p = 0.029

 

Sex

ISAYA 1998-2000

GEIRD 2007-2010

p = 0.760

  Women

1

0.71 (0.65-0.79)

1

  Men

1.42 (1.30-1.56)

1.19 (1.07-1.33)

0.98 (0.87-1.10)

 

Interaction age*time: p < 0.001

 

Age

ISAYA 1998-2000

GEIRD 2007-2010

p < 0.001

  20-29 years

1

0.95 (0.83-1.08)

1

  30-39 years

1.26 (1.14-1.40)

1.00 (0.88-1.12)

1.93 (1.67-2.23)

  40-47 years

1.84 (1.62-2.09)

1.09 (0.95-1.24)

2.47 (2.10-2.89)

 

Interaction occupation*time: p = 0.047

 

Occupation

ISAYA 1998-2000

GEIRD 2007-2010

p < 0.001

  Clerk

1

0.74 (0.66-0.83)

1

  Housewife

1.25 (1.06-1.46)

0.75 (0.59-0.94)

1.07 (0.88-1.31)

  Manager

1.01 (0.73-1.41)

0.68 (0.44-1.04)

0.95 (0.64-1.40)

  Businessman

1.55 (1.19-2.01)

1.05 (0.75-1.46)

0.87 (0.66-1.16)

  Free-lancer

1.14 (0.98-1.32)

0.78 (0.65-0.94)

0.76 (0.64-0.91)

  Workman

1.49 (1.31-1.70)

1.27 (1.08-1.49)

0.75 (0.64-0.87)

  Unemployed

1.11 (0.92-1.33)

1.24 (0.98-1.57)

0.61 (0.48-0.78)

  Student

0.67 (0.56-0.79)

0.60 (0.49-0.73)

0.70 (0.54-0.91)

  Other job

1.47 (1.21-1.79)

1.13 (0.83-1.54)

0.96 (0.76-1.22)

Odds Ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained by logistic regression models, comprising time (ISAYA/GEIRD), centre, sex, age, occupation, season of response, percentile rank of cumulative response and type of contact.

The column dealing with the trend of smoking initiation (being ever smoker) was split in two as there were significant interactions between time and the main predictors (sex, age, occupation). The column dealing with smoking cessation (being ex-smoker) was not split as no significant interaction emerged.

The OR of being an ex-smoker among ever smokers increased by one third from the first to the second survey, and the decline was not significantly modified by gender, age or occupation. As already shown in the previous cross-sectional analysis, the odds of being an ex-smoker increased with advancing age, were the lowest in unemployed, and were not affected by gender.

Discussion

The main findings of the present study are:
  1. 1)

    During the last decade the prevalence of current smoking has significantly declined in Italy in both sexes, due to both a decrease in smoking initiation and a simultaneous increase in smoking cessation. The decreasing trend in smoking initiation was slightly more pronounced in women than in men; as regards age, the decline was nearly absent in people aged 20–29 years and particularly pronounced in people aged 40–47 years. Age at smoking initiation has not changed during the last decade, while the number of cigarettes smoked daily has declined in male smokers, but not in females.

     
  2. 2)

    As regards occupation, the declining trend in smoking initiation was particularly evident in housewives, managers, businessmen and free-lancers, while starting smoking became even more common among unemployed. Instead the decreasing trend in smoking cessation was not affected by occupation.

     
  3. 3)

    As a consequence, nowadays in Italy initiation ratios are the highest in lower socio-economic classes, i.e. in people with only primary or secondary school education, and in unemployed and workmen. Conversely these classes also present the lowest quit ratios. Education proved to be a stronger predictor of smoking habits than occupation. The inverse association between smoking and education level, although significant in both sexes, is stronger in men than in women.

     
  4. 4)

    Current smokers belonging to the lower socioeconomic classes present a greater cumulative smoking exposure than their counterparts in the higher socioeconomic classes, resulting from both an earlier age at starting smoking and a greater number of cigarettes consumed daily. Cumulative smoking exposure at the age of 30 years is nearly doubled in current smokers with only primary school license with respect to those with a university degree.

     

It should be reminded that the Italian centres participating in ISAYA or GEIRD were not chosen randomly, but on the presence of experienced research teams willing to carry out the survey. The prevalence estimates of current and past smoking, however, are in line with those reported by other surveys carried out on Italian national samples by the Italian National Statistical Institute (ISTAT) [13, 36] or DOXA-Mario Negri-Istituto Superiore di Sanità [1, 37]. At variance, these surveys reported that the decreasing trend in smoking among Italian women had levelled off in the last decade, which is opposite to the results of the present survey.

In the 3rd millennium socioeconomic inequalities in smoking habits are still widening in Italy in both sexes [13], at variance with other Western countries where this trend seems to have levelled off [3] or to continue only in women [19]. In Italy the prevalence of current smoking is decreasing among higher socioeconomic classes but not among lower classes, and this pattern mainly reflects a parallel pattern in smoking initiation, in agreement with another Italian study [8]. Accordingly, the absolute difference in daily smoking between secondary school students in vocational or academic tracks has increased by 8.8% from 2002 to 2010 [29]. Moreover, number of cigarettes smoked daily was higher in socially disadvantaged smokers, as reported in the current literature [5, 19, 38], and this inequality has been enlarging during the last decade, as observed in Dutch men [19].

In the present study education proved to be a more important determinant of smoking initiation and cessation than occupation. Of note, education and occupation were strongly related: people with primary school licence were mainly workmen, housewives and unemployed, while people with university degree were mainly clerks and freelancers. While other surveys, performed in Southern Europe as well [1, 7], did not find any difference in smoking initiation between women with low or high education, in the present survey as well as in another Italian study [13] smoking initiation was inversely related to education level also in women, but the association was less strong than in men.

The present research has some limitations. First of all, response percentage decreased from the first (72.7%) to the second (57.2%) survey, and this trend could affect prevalence estimates, as ex-smokers are early responders while current smokers are late responders in epidemiological surveys [34]. However, to counteract possible selection bias, risk estimates were adjusted for percentile rank of cumulative response and type of contact (postal vs. phone). Second, in the present survey the definition for ex-smokers was not very rigorous, as an abstinence of just one month was required, according to the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) questionnaire [32]. Third, reports of smoking status were not verified with biochemical methods. Nevertheless, in one participating centre (Verona) a good agreement had been found (Cohen’s k = 0.93) between self-reported smoking consumption and serum cotinine levels [33]. Fourth, recall bias could have affected self-reporting of age at smoking initiation or cessation, as individuals tend to attribute the onset of a habit to an age closer to the time of interview than the true age at onset [39]. However, no recall bias had been detected in a similar survey, the Italian branch of ECRHS: age at start smoking, reported by 313 subjects interviewed twice 8.6 years apart, was only 0.01 ± 2.01 years lower in the second interview with respect to the first one.

Data collection in the present study ended in 2010, before the peak of economic crisis in Italy. Indeed in GEIRD cross-sectional the proportion of unemployed was 6.5%, which is compatible with national Italian data in 2008 (6.7%), while it has peaked at 13.6% in the first trimester 2014 [http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=DCCV_TAXDISOCCU]. It can be expected that such large increase in unemployment has remarkably affected smoking prevalence: for instance, in the United States during the economic crisis the expected decrease in smokers among employed was counterbalanced by a largely unexpected increase in smokers among unemployed [40].

Conclusions

In conclusion, in Italy the prevalence of current smoking has decreased during the last decade in both sexes, thanks to both a decrease in smoking initiation and an increase in smoking cessation. However, the decreasing trend, while pronounced in the highest socioeconomic classes, has not started yet among the lowest classes. This divergent pattern mainly reflects a different trend in smoking initiation and is amplified by enlarging difference in smoking intensity. Health inequalities related to tobacco smoke are particularly large when socioeconomic status is evaluated by considering education rather than occupation. As a consequence, anti-smoking campaigns should focus on socioeconomically disadvantaged teenagers.

Ethical approval

Ethics approval was obtained in each centre involved in GEIRD from the appropriate ethics committee (Comitato Etico dell’Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona; Comitato di Bioetica della Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo di Pavia; Comitato Etico dell’Azienda Sanitaria Locale SA/2 di Salerno; Comitato di Bioetica dell’Azienda Sanitaria Locale di Sassari; Comitato Etico delle Aziende Sanitarie dell’Umbria di Perugia; Comitato Etico dell’Azienda Sanitaria Locale TO/2 di Torino; Comitato Etico per la Sperimentazione dell’Azienda Ospedaliera Istituti Ospitalieri di Verona). All participants were fully informed about all aspects of the research project and consented to complete and return the questionnaire.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Members of the GEIRD study group: R. de Marco, G. Verlato, M.E. Zanolin, S. Accordini, O. Bortolami, M. Braggion, V. Cappa, L. Cazzoletti, P. Girardi, F. Locatelli, A. Marcon, E. Montoli, M. Rava, R. Vesentini (Unit of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, University of Verona, Italy); M. Ferrari, L. Donatelli, C. Posenato, V. Lo Cascio (Section of Internal Medicine, University of Verona); L. Perbellini, M. Olivieri, J. D’Amato, E. Donatini, M. Martinelli (Unit of Occupational Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera “Istituti Ospitalieri di Verona”); P.F. Pignatti, C. Bombieri, M.D. Bettin, E. Trabetti (Unit of Biology and Genetics, University of Verona); A. Poli, M. Nicolis, S. Sembeni (Unit of Hygiene and Preventive, Environmental and Occupational Medicine, University of Verona); L. Antonicelli, F. Bonifazi (Dept of Internal Medicine, Immuno-Allergic and Respiratory Diseases, Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona); F. Attena, V. Galdo (Dept of Public, Clinical and Preventive Medicine, II University of Naples); V. Bellia, S. Battaglia (Dept of Medicine, Pneumology, Physiology and Human Nutrition, University of Palermo); I. Cerveri, A.G. Corsico, F. Albicini, E. Gini, A. Grosso (Division of Respiratory Diseases, IRCCS Policlinico “San Matteo”, University of Pavia), A. Marinoni, S. Villani, V. Ferretti (Dept of Health Sciences, University of Pavia); L. Casali, A. Miniucchi (Dept of Internal Medicine, Section of Respiratory Diseases, University of Perugia); L. Briziarelli, M. Marcarelli (Dept of Medical-Surgical Specialties and Public Health, University of Perugia); M.G. Panico (National Health Service, Epidemiology Unit, ASL 2, Salerno); P. Pirina, A.G. Fois, F. Becciu, A. Deledda, V. Spada (Institute of Respiratory Diseases, University of Sassari); M. Bugiani, A. Carosso, P. Piccioni, G. Castiglioni (National Health Service, CPA-ASL TO2, Unit of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Turin); R. Bono, R. Tassinari, G. Trucco (Dept of Public Health and Microbiology, University of Turin); G. Rolla, E. Heffler (Dept of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Turin); E. Migliore (Centre of Oncologic Prevention, Turin).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Unit of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Verona
(2)
Department of Medicine, University of Verona
(3)
Allergy Unit, Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona
(4)
Department of Public, Clinical and Preventive Medicine, II University of Naples
(5)
Department of Public Health and Pediatrics, University of Turin
(6)
Department of Hygiene, University of Perugia
(7)
Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Respiratory Disease, University of Perugia
(8)
Institute of Respiratory Diseases, IRCCS San Matteo
(9)
Institute of Respiratory Diseases, University of Sassari
(10)
Unit of Epidemiology
(11)
Unit of Respiratory Medicine, National Health Service (CPA-ASL TO2)
(12)
Department of Public Health, Experimental and Legal Medicine, University of Pavia
(13)
Corporate Clinical Development, Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A
(14)
Sezione di Epidemiologia e Statisca Medica, Istituti Biologici 2B

References

  1. Gallus S, Muttarak R, Martínez-Sánchez JM, Zuccaro P, Colombo P, La Vecchia C: Smoking prevalence and smoking attributable mortality in Italy, 2010. Prev Med. 2011, 52: 434-438. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.03.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bjerg A, Ekerljung L, Middelveld R, Dahlén S, Forsberg B, Franklin K, Larsson K, Lötvall J, Olafsdóttir IS, Torén K, Lundbäck B, Janson C: Increased prevalence of symptoms of rhinitis but not of asthma between 1990 and 2008 in Swedish adults: Comparisons of the ECRHS and GA2LEN surveys. PlosOne. 2011, 6 (2): e16082-10.1371/journal.pone.0016082.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Filion KB, Steffen LM, Duval S, Jacobs DR, Blackburn H, Luepker RV: Trends in smoking among adults from 1980 to 2009: The Minnesota Heart Survey. Am J Public Health. 2012, 102: 705-713. 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300162.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Secades-Villa R, Olfson M, Okuda M, Velasquez N, Pérez-Fuentes G, Liu S, Blanco C: Trends in the prevalence of tobacco use in the United States, 1991–92 to 2004–05. Psychiatr Serv. 2013, 64: 458-465. 10.1176/appi.ps.002852012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Reid JL, Hammond D, Driezen P: Socio-economic status and smoking in Canada, 1999–2006: Has there been any progress on disparities in tobacco use?. Can J Public Health. 2010, 10: 73-78.Google Scholar
  6. Lopez AD, Collishaw NE, Piha T: A descriptive model of the cigarette epidemic in developed countries. Tob Control. 1994, 3: 242-247. 10.1136/tc.3.3.242.View ArticlePubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Federico B, Costa G, Kunst AE: Educational inequalities in initiation, cessation, and prevalence of smoking among 3 Italian birth cohorts. Am J Public Health. 2007, 97: 838-845. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.067082.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Reid JL, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Fong GT, Siahpush M, on behalf of the ITC Collaboration: Socioeconomic disparities in quit intentions, quit attempts, and smoking abstinence among smokers in four western countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010, 12 (Suppl1): S20-S33.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Leinsalu M, Kaposvári C, Kunst AE: Is income or employment a stronger predictor of smoking than education in economically less developed countries? A cross-sectional study in Hungary. BMC Public Health. 2011, 11: 97-10.1186/1471-2458-11-97.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Kvaavik E, Rise J: How do impulsivity and education relate to smoking initiation and cessation among young adults?. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2012, 73 (5): 804-810.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kurtze N, Eikemo TA, Kamphuis CB: Educational inequalities in general and mental health: differential contribution of physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption and diet. Eur J Public Health. 2013, 23: 223-229. 10.1093/eurpub/cks055.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gorini G, Carreras G, Allara E, Faggiano F: Decennial trends of social differences in smoking habits in Italy: a 30-year update. Cancer Causes Control. 2013, 24: 1385-1391. 10.1007/s10552-013-0218-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jefferis BJ, Power C, Graham H, Manor O: Changing social gradients in cigarette smoking and cessation over two decades of adult follow-up in a British birth cohort. J Public Health. 2004, 26: 13-18. 10.1093/pubmed/fdh110.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Verlato G, Melotti R, Corsico AG, Carrozzi L, Marinoni A, Dallari R, Pirina P, Struzzo P, Olivieri M, de Marco R: Time trends in smoking habits among Italian young adults. Respir Med. 2006, 100: 2197-2206. 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.03.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Giordano GN, Lindström M: The impact of social capital on changes in smoking behaviour: a longitudinal cohort study. Eur J Public Health. 2011, 2: 347-354.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Fujishiro K, Stukovsky KDH, Roux AD, Landsbergis P, Burchfiel C: Occupational gradients in smoking behavior and exposure to workplace environmental tobacco smoke. J Occ Environ Med. 2012, 54: 136-145. 10.1097/JOM.0b013e318244501e.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Huisman M, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP: Inequalities in the prevalence of smoking in the European Union: comparing education and income. Prev Med. 2005, 40: 756-764. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.09.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Nagelhout GE, de Korte-de Boer D, Kunst AE, van der Meer RM, de Vries H, van Gelder BM, Willemsen MC: Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking prevalence, consumption, initiation, and cessation between 2001 and 2008 in the Netherlands. Findings from a national population survey. BMC Public Health. 2012, 12: 303-10.1186/1471-2458-12-303.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Pierce JP, Fiore MC, Novotny TE, Hatziandreu EJ, Davis RM: Trends in cigarette smoking in the United States. Educational differences are increasing. JAMA. 1989, 261: 56-60. 10.1001/jama.1989.03420010066034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. White V, Hill D, Siahpush M, Bobevski I: How has the prevalence of cigarette smoking changed among Australian adults? Trends in smoking prevalence between 1980 and 2001. Tob Control. 2003, 12 (Suppl 2): ii67-ii74.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Giskes K, Kunst AE, Benach J, Borrell C, Costa G, Dahl E, Dalstra JAA, 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
  23. Harper S, Lynch J: Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in adult health behaviors among U.S. states, 1990–2004. Public Health Rep. 2007, 122: 177-189.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Daponte-Codina A, Bolívar-Muñoz J, Ocaña-Riola R, Toro-Cárdenas S, Mayoral-Cortés J: Patterns of smoking according to individual social position, and to socio-economic environment in municipal areas, Spain 1987–2001. Health Place. 2009, 15: 709-716. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.11.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Rasmussen M, Due P, Damsgaard MT, Holstein BE: Social inequality in adolescent daily smoking: has it changed over time?. Scand J Public Health. 2009, 37: 287-294. 10.1177/1403494809102178.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Gartner C, Scollo M, Marquart L, Mathews R, Hall W: Analysis of national data shows mixed evidence of hardening among Australian smokers. Aust NZ J Publ Heal. 2012, 36: 408-414. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00908.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith P, Frank J, Mustard C: Trends in educational inequalities in smoking and physical activity in Canada: 1974–2005. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009, 63: 317-323. 10.1136/jech.2008.078204.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Genereux M, Roy M, Montpetit C, Azzou SAK, Gratton J: Regional surveillance of social and geographic inequalities in smoking: The case of Montreal, Canada. Health Place. 2012, 18: 240-249. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. de Looze M, ter Bogt T, Hublet A, Kuntsche E, Richter M, Zsiros E, Godeau E, Vollebergh W: Trends in educational differences in adolescent daily smoking across Europe, 2002–10. Eur J Public Health. 2013, 23 (5): 846-852. 10.1093/eurpub/ckt022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. de Marco R, Accordini S, Antonicelli L, Bellia V, Bettin MD, Bombieri C, Bonifazi F, Bugiani M, Carosso A, Casali L, Cazzoletti L, Cerveri I, Corsico AG, Ferrari M, Fois AG, Lo Cascio V, Marcon A, Marinoni A, Olivieri M, Perbellini L, Pignatti P, Pirina P, Poli A, Rolla G, Trabetti E, Verlato G, Villani S, Zanolin ME, The GEIRD Study Group: The Genes Environment Interactions in Respiratory Diseases (GEIRD) Project. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2010, 152: 255-263. 10.1159/000283034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. de Marco R, Cappa V, Accordini S, Rava M, Antonicelli L, Bortolami O, Braggion M, Bugiani M, Casali L, Cazzoletti L, Cerveri I, Fois AG, Girardi P, Locatelli F, Marcon A, Marinoni A, Panico MG, Pirini P, Villani S, Zanolin ME, Verlato G, for the GEIRD study group: Trends in the prevalence of asthma and allergic rhinitis in Italy between 1991 and 2010. Eur Respir J. 2012, 39: 883-892. 10.1183/09031936.00061611.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. de Marco R, Zanolin ME, Accordini S, Signorelli D, Marinoni A, Bugiani M, Lo Cascio V, Woods R, Burney P: A new questionnaire for the repeat of the first stage of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS): a pilot study. Eur Respir J. 1999, 14: 1044-1048. 10.1183/09031936.99.14510449.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Olivieri M, Poli A, Zuccaro P, Ferrari M, Lampronti G, de Marco R, Lo Cascio V, Pacifici R: Tobacco smoke exposure and serum cotinine in a random sample of adults living in Verona, Italy. Arch Environ Health. 2002, 57: 355-359. 10.1080/00039890209601421.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Verlato G, Melotti R, Olivieri M, Corsico A, Bugiani M, Accordini S, Villani S, Migliore E, Marinoni A, Pirina P, Carrozzi L, Bortolami O, Rava M, de Marco R, for the ISAYA study group: Asthmatics and ex-smokers respond early, heavy smokers respond late to mailed surveys in Italy. Respir Med. 2010, 104: 172-179. 10.1016/j.rmed.2009.09.022.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Burnham KP, Anderson DR: Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection. Sociological Methods and Research. 2004, 33: 261-304. 10.1177/0049124104268644.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. ISTAT: Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie “Aspetti della vita quotidiana”. Anno 2010 (Multipurpose survey on households: aspects of daily life, year 2010). http://www3.istat.it/dati/dataset/20110810_00. Accessed on 20 Apr 2014
  37. Tramacere I, Gallus S, Pacifici R, Zuccaro P, Colombo P, La Vecchia C: Smoking in young and adult population, Italy 2009. Tumori. 2011, 97: 423-427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bobak M, Jarvis MJ, Skodovac Z, Mamot M: Smoke intake among smokers is higher in lower socioeconomic groups. Tob Control. 2000, 9: 310-312. 10.1136/tc.9.3.310.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Aitken JF, Youl PH, Janda M, Elwood M, Ring IT, Lowe JB, Firman DW: Validity of self-reported skin screening histories. Am J Epidemiol. 2004, 159 (11): 1098-1105. 10.1093/aje/kwh143.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Gallus S, Ghilsandi S, Muttarak R: Effect of economic crisis on smoking prevalence and number of smokers in the USA. Tob Control. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-201 2–050856. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  41. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/879/prepub

Copyright

© Verlato et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

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/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.