Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Patterns of nicotine dependence in four Eastern European countries

  • Dorota Kaleta1Email author,
  • Kinga Polańska1,
  • Przemysław Korytkowski2,
  • Bukola Usidame3 and
  • Leokadia Bąk-Romaniszyn4
BMC Public Health201515:1189

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2537-0

Received: 17 May 2015

Accepted: 22 November 2015

Published: 28 November 2015

Abstract

Background

Evidence of patterns of nicotine dependence, although crucial for developing and implementing effective tobacco control strategies, is limited in the Eastern European countries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the correlates of high nicotine dependence among adults in Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

Methods

The data used in the current analysis is available from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (2009–2011). Nicotine dependence was assessed using the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI), which covers two measures: reported cigarettes smoked per day and time to the first cigarette upon waking. Based on a six-point scale of HSI, nicotine dependence was categorized into low to moderate (score 0–3), and high dependence (score 4–6). Out of 31,936 completed interviews, we used data from 8229 daily smokers.

Results

The study results indicate that more than 25 % of daily smokers were highly dependent on nicotine. Higher odds of high nicotine dependence were identified for males (OR = 1.5 in Poland and Romania, OR = 2.7 in Russia; p ≤ 0.001), people between 50–59 years of age (the highest odds in Romania; OR = 4.8; p ≤ 0.001) and those who had started smoking at a young age (the highest odds in Romania, OR = 5.0; p ≤ 0.001). Having fewer restrictions on smoking at home was significantly associated with a high level of nicotine dependence (the highest odds in Romania, OR = 3.0; p ≤ 0.001). A high proportion of the participants had no interest in quitting smoking, with a statistically significantly higher percentage observed among smokers highly dependent on nicotine compared to the less addicted (p ≤ 0.01).

Conclusions

Smokers highly dependent on nicotine constitute a quarter of the Romanian group of daily smokers and even more in the remaining three analyzed countries. Similar patterns of nicotine dependence were observed in all of the investigated countries showing that male gender, younger age at the smoking onset, and fewer restrictions on smoking at home were significantly associated with higher nicotine dependence. The study highlighted the fact that a high proportion of the participants had no interest in quitting smoking. These results underscore importance of policy measures as well as prevention and cessation interventions for smokers who are highly dependent on nicotine, which need to take into account the social gradient in smoking patterns.

Keywords

Smoking Tobacco Nicotine dependence Adults GATS

Background

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), tobacco smoking kills more Europeans than any other preventable risk factor [1]. Compared to other regions, the WHO European Region has one of the highest rates of smoking, and the highest proportion of deaths attributable to tobacco. In addition to the loss to society caused by premature deaths, tobacco consumption also leads to higher health care costs and decreased economic productivity due to more cases of absenteeism from work, premature retirements or deaths [2, 3].

The four Eastern European countries, namely Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, are among the countries experiencing the highest smoking rates and consequently highest tobacco-related health burden. Smoking prevalence among Russian and Ukrainian men is one of the highest in the world with more than, respectively, 60 % and 50 % of men consuming tobacco [4, 5]. It needs to be pointed out that male life expectancy in Russia dropped from 64 years in 1989 to 59 years in 2008, and from 66.2 years in 1989 to 62.2 years in 2007 in Ukraine, mainly due to tobacco consumption [6]. Smoking prevalence for women, though lower than for men, is still 22 % in Russia and 11 % in Ukraine [4, 5]. In Poland and Romania 37 % of adult men reported tobacco smoking, either regular or occasional [7, 8]. For women, these percentages are 21 % and 17 %, respectively [7, 8].

As a result of public health and regulatory activities, an overall reduction in smoking prevalence in Europe has been observed in recent years. Despite this, the Eastern European countries lag behind the West in implementing tobacco control measures. In addition, the main decrease in tobacco consumption has been achieved in the middle and high-income groups, causing a significant widening of inequalities [9]. WHO suggests that national population-based tobacco control policies are important, but are unlikely to significantly reduce inequalities without additional measures. When developing tobacco control policies at European, national and local levels, it is essential to consider equity implications with the best available evidence [10]. According to the WHO recommendations, understanding methods that reduce tobacco use across all social groups is critical for addressing overall tobacco consumption [1114].

Apart from monitoring prevalence of smoking, understanding nicotine dependence and its determinants are also crucial for developing and implementing effective tobacco control strategies [1517]. The patterns of nicotine dependence in the Eastern European countries are not well documented. This is a clear barrier for the effective tobacco control initiatives [5].

Therefore, we explored factors associated with nicotine dependence in four Eastern European countries.

Methods

Study design and population

The data used in the current analysis is available from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) [1820], a global standard used to systematically monitor adult tobacco use and track key tobacco control indicators. Country-specific, anonymous GATS data was freely available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Global Tobacco Surveillance System Data website. The target population included all non-institutionalized men and women aged 15 years or older who considered a given country to be their usual place of residence. The survey methodology has been previously described in detail [14, 1820]. GATS meets standard protocol measures that allow country-by-country comparison on a global scale. The survey has been seen as a part of the Bloomberg Global Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use by the Bloomberg Philanthropies, who support the survey in a bid to fill the gap for measuring adult tobacco use globally. The GATS was conducted in Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine by the National Implementing Agencies under the supervision and approval of the Ministries of Health and the World Health Organization Country Offices. All questionnaire contents were reviewed and approved by the Questionnaire Expert Review Committees. In all countries, the Ministries of Health revised and approved the study protocols and also appointed two committees – the GATS Scientific Committee and the GATS Steering Committee – who handled the scientific, ethical and technical coordination of the study. The WHO Country Offices and the CDC also participated. The study obtained informed consent from all participants to participate in the study. Informed consent was obtained from parents or guardian in the case of participants under the age of 16. Accordingly, with the GATS requirements and procedures, a geographically clustered, multistage sampling methodology was used to identify the specific households that Field Interviewers contacted. First, each country was divided into Primary Sampling Units, then segments within the Primary Sampling Units, and households within the segments, from which a random sample of households was selected to participate in GATS. The GATS interview was composed of a Household Questionnaire and an Individual Questionnaire. These questionnaires were utilized during face to face interviews and recorded on an electronic data collection device. Out of 31,936 completed interviews we utilized self-reported data on smoking from 8229 daily smokers (person who smokes at least one cigarette a day) aged 26 and above from the four mentioned earlier Eastern European countries.

The overall survey response rates were, as follows: Poland 65.1 %, Romania 88.5 %, Russia 97.7 % and Ukraine 76.2 %.

Study variables

The outcome variable was the level of nicotine dependence assessed by the Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) [2125]. HSI covers two measures, which are identified as the most predictive for nicotine dependence: reported cigarettes smoked per day (How many cigarettes do you typically smoke per day?) and time to the first cigarette upon waking (On the days that you smoke, how soon after you wake up do you have your first cigarette?). Based on a six-point scale calculated from these two measures: 1) the number of cigarettes smoked per day (10 or fewer: 0 points, 11–20: 1 point, 21–30: 2 points, 31 or more cigarettes: 3 points) and 2) the time to the first cigarette after waking (within 5 min: 3 points, 6–30 min: 2 points, 31–60 min: 1 point, after 60 min: 0 points), nicotine dependence was categorized into either low to moderate (0–3) or high (4–6). The HSI has been revealed to be a reliable and a valid measure of the severity of nicotine dependence, associated with objective measures such as cotinine levels or alveolar carbon monoxide [2125]. The HSI has been also found to identify a similar dependent population to the Fagerstrom Tolerance Questionnaire (FTQ) and the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) [25].

The variables applied to determine nicotine dependence associations were gender (male, female) and age. The age of the respondents was categorized into five groups: 26–29, 30-39, 40–49, 50–59, and ≥60 years old. The age at smoking onset – the age at which the respondents began to smoke tobacco on a regular basis – was also taken into account (<14, 14–17, 18–20, 21 years or over). Furthermore, the socio-economic status (including education, economic activity, place of residence and Asset Index (AI)) was assessed. Educational attainment was regarded as completed: primary, vocational, secondary or high education. Economic activity differentiated the subjects who were not economically active (pupils, students, homemakers, retirees, and pensioners due to disability), the currently employed, and the unemployed. The place of residence differentiated rural from urban settings. The Asset Index reflected ownership of different household items and was calculated based on a cumulative score of possession of the following assets: functioning electricity, flushing toilet, fixed telephone, mobile telephone, television, radio, refrigerator, car, washing machine, computer and internet access. The score was categorized into high, medium, low. Rules regarding smoking at home were categorized, as follows: smoking is allowed everywhere, smoking is prohibited with some exceptions from the rules, smoking is prohibited in all areas, and no rules. Awareness of smoking health consequences was sought using the question: Do you think that tobacco smoking causes serious diseases? The respondents were classified as being aware if they answered “yes”, and unaware if they answered “no” or “do not know”. Likewise, we assessed awareness of health consequences of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). In addition, we evaluated support for tobacco control policies among the respondents by distinguishing between high, medium and low levels of support. This measure was based on 8 questions specifying different tobacco control policy items. The cumulative score was divided into: supporting 4–5 policies (high level), 2–3 policies (medium level) and 0–1 policy (low level). Finally, we also focused on any intentions to quit, attempts at quitting during the past 12 months and healthcare provider encouragement or advice to quit smoking. The smokers were asked whether they had visited a healthcare professional in the year prior to the survey and if they answered “yes” whether they have been asked about their smoking habits and whether they had received quitting advice from the healthcare professional.

Statistical analysis

The STATISTICA Windows XP version 10.0 program was used to carry out the statistical analysis. Initially, a descriptive analysis for all the variables involved in the analysis was completed. Categorical variables were studied by the use of the chi-square test. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses with results being presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95 % confidence intervals were applied to the study associates of high nicotine dependence among adults in the four studied countries. In the multivariable analyses, all statistically significant characteristics (p < 0.05) were simultaneously included. To test multicollinearity between the variables, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated. VIFs in all except one (VIF = 5.1 for people older than 60 years) were lower than 4, which indicates that the assumption of reasonable independence among predictor variables was met.

Results

Characteristics of the study population

The characteristics of the sample are described in Table 1. Women represented about 17 % of the studied daily smokers aged 26 years and older in Russia, 31 % in Romania, 41 % in Poland and 50 % in Ukraine. In all the countries, the lowest proportion of participants was noted in the youngest (26–29 years of age) and oldest (≥60 years of age) age categories. The highest proportion of the study subjects that were daily smokers with higher education was noted in Russia and the lowest in Poland. In all the countries more than 60 % of the subjects included in the analysis were employed. Urban areas as the place of residence were indicated by slightly more than 50 % of the study participants. A high AI category was noticed for 78 % of the daily smokers from Poland and only for 39 % from Russia. About 60 % of the study subjects in Poland and Romania indicated that smoking was allowed at home or that there were no rules regarding smoking at home. Such categories were indicated by fewer Ukrainians and Russians. In all the analyzed countries the proportions of people who were aware of health consequences of ETS exposure were slightly lower compared to the proportion of the people who were aware of health consequences of active smoking. A high level of support for tobacco control was specified by around 50 % of the study sample in all the countries.
Table 1

High nicotine dependence by selected socio-demographic characteristics in men aged 26 years and over – univariable logistic regression

Variable

Poland (N = 1939)

Romania (N = 867)

Russia (N = 3558)

Ukraine (N = 1865)

 

N

n

%

OR (95 % CI)

N

n

%

OR (95 % CI)

N

n

%

OR (95 % CI)

N

n

%

OR (95 % CI)

Sex

N = 1939

N = 867

N = 3558

N = 1865

 Female

785

170

21.7

1.0 (Ref.)

272

50

18.4

1.0 (Ref.)

600

80

13.3

1.0 (Ref.)

240

25

10.4

1.0 (Ref.)

 Male

1154

364

31.5

1.7 (1.4–2.1)a

595

170

28.6

1.8 (1.3–2.5)b

2958

969

32.8

3.2 (2.5–4.1)a

1625

458

28.2

3.4 (2.2–5.2)a

Age (years)

N = 1939

N = 867

N = 3558

N = 1865

 26–29

182

33

18.1

1.0 (Ref.)

88

14

15.9

1.0 (Ref.)

399

96

24.1

1.0 (Ref.)

217

27

12.4

1.0 (Ref.)

 30–39

453

103

22.7

1.4 (0.9–2.1)

207

37

17.9

1.2 (0.7–2.1)

945

225

23.8

0.99 (0.8–1.3)

541

136

25.1

2.4 (1.5–3.7)a

 40–49

523

154

29.4

1.9 (1.2–2.9)b

233

75

32.2

2.8 (1.7–4.6)a

886

256

28.9

1.3 (0.98–1.7)

433

125

28.9

2.9 (1.8–4.5)a

 50–59

521

174

33.4

2.3 (1.5–3.4)a

209

67

32.1

2.7 (1.6–4.4)a

845

304

36.0

1.8 (1.4–2.3)a

385

116

30.1

3.0 (1.9–4.8)a

 ≥60

260

70

26.9

1.7 (1.04–2.7)c

130

27

20.8

1.5 (0.8–2.7)

483

168

34.8

1.7 (1.3–2.3)a

289

79

27.3

2.7 (1.6–4.3)a

Age at smoking onset

N = 1880

N = 867

N = 3557

N = 1840

 <14

44

20

45.5

3.4 (1.8–6.3)a

52

21

40.4

3.6 (1.9–6.7)a

288

151

52.4

3.9 (2.9–5.3)a

175

78

44.6

3.7 (2.5–5.6)a

 14–17

583

220

37.7

2.4 (1.8–3.3)a

266

98

36.8

2.8 (1.8–4.4)a

1291

420

32.5

1.7 (1.4–2.1)a

634

198

31.2

2.4 (1.7–3.3)a

 18–20

806

186

23.1

1.2 (0.9–1.6)

338

69

20.4

1.5 (0.95–2.3)

1229

313

25.5

1.2 (0.98–1.5)

678

147

21.7

1.5 (1.04–2.0)c

 ≥21

447

89

19.9

1.0 (Ref.)

211

32

15.2

1.0 (Ref.)

749

164

21.9

1.0 (Ref.)

353

57

16.1

1.0 (Ref.)

Education

N = 1934

N = 860

N = 3556

N = 1861

 Primary

294

101

34.4

2.6 (1.7–4.1)a

58

19

32.8

2.3 (1.2–4.5)a

91

41

45.1

3.0 (1.9–4.7)a

122

48

39.3

4.4 (2.7–7.3)a

 Vocational

746

229

30.7

2.2 (1.5–3.3)a

200

53

26.5

1.7 (0.98–2.9)

1349

406

30.1

1.6 (1.3–1.93)a

802

181

22.6

2.0 (1.4–2.9)a

 Secondary

696

170

24.4

1.6 (1.1– 2.4)a

476

127

26.7

1.6 (0.97–2.5)

1228

412

33.6

1.9 (1.5– 2.3)a

649

215

33.1

3.4 (2.3–4.9)a

 High

198

33

16.7

1.0 (Ref.)

126

22

17.5

1.0 (Ref.)

888

190

21.4

1.0 (Ref.)

288

37

12.8

1.0 (Ref.)

Occupational classification

N = 1939

N = 863

N = 3554

N = 1860

 Economically not active

587

168

28.6

1.1 (0.92– 1.4)

181

40

22.1

0.9 (0.7-1.3)

590

194

32.9

1.3 (1.1– 1.6)c

357

98

27.5

1.3 (1. 1–7)c

 Employed

1187

307

25.9

1.0 (Ref.)

561

136

24.2

1.0 (Ref.)

2611

720

27.6

1.0 (Ref.)

1185

265

22.4

1.0 (Ref.)

 Unemployed

165

59

35.8

1.6 (1.1–2.2)b

121

43

35.5

1.8 (1.2–2.8)b

353

134

38.0

1.6 (1.2–2.1)a

318

120

37.7

2.2 (1.6–2.8)a

Place of residence

N = 1939

N = 867

N = 3558

N = 1865

 Rural

911

255

28.0

1.04 (0.9–1.3)

355

99

27.9

1.3 (0.96–1.7)

1676

555

33.1

1.4 (1.2–1.6)a

906

274

30.2

1.6 (1.3–1.9)a

 Urban

1028

279

27.1

1.0 (Ref.)

512

121

23.6

1.0 (Ref.)

1882

494

26.2

1.0 (Ref.)

959

209

21.8

1.0 (Ref.)

Asset Index

N = 1922

   

N = 856

   

N = 3558

   

N = 1865

   

 High

1495

390

26.1

1.0 (Ref.)

447

108

24.2

1.0 (Ref.)

1399

360

25.7

1.0 (Ref.)

755

160

21.2

1.0 (Ref.)

 Middle

377

116

30.8

1.3 (0.98–1.6)

293

78

26.6

1.1 (0.8–1.6)

1956

605

30.9

1.3 (1.1–1.5)b

884

243

27.5

1.4 (1.1–1.8)b

 Low

50

24

48.0

2.6 (1.5–4.6)a

116

36

31.0

1.6 (1.03–2.4)c

203

84

41.4

2.0 (1.5–2.8)a

226

80

35.4

2.0 (1.5–2.8)a

Rules regarding smoking at home

N = 1934

N = 860

N = 3553

N = 1864

 Smoking is allowed

975

313

32.1

2.5 (1.8–3.6) a

446

138

30.9

1.9 (1.3–2.8)a

945

333

35.2

1.7 (1.4–2.1)a

344

119

34.6

2.1 (1.6–2.7)a

 Smoking is prohibited– with some exceptions

488

114

23.4

1.6 (1.1–2.4)c

162

26

16.0

0.9 (0.6–1.5)

1296

377

29.1

1.3 (1.1–1.6)b

604

169

28.0

1.5 (1.2–1.9)a

 Smoking is completely prohibited

270

43

15.9

1.0 (Ref.)

220

41

18.6

1.0 (Ref.)

1059

254

24.0

1.0 (Ref.)

847

173

20.4

1.0 (Ref.)

 No rules.

201

62

30.8

2.4 (1.5–3.7)a

32

15

46.9

4.4 (2.1–9.2)a

253

83

32.8

1.6 (1.2–2.1)b

69

22

31.9

1.8 (1.1–3.1)c

Awareness of smoking health consequences

N = 1782

N = 861

N = 3417

N = 1753

 Yes

1566

399

25.5

1.0 (Ref)

812

202

24.9

1.0 (Ref.)

3013

883

29.3

1.0 (Ref.)

1596

394

24.7

1.0 (Ref.)

 No

216

76

35.2

1.6 (1.2–2.2)b

49

17

34.7

1.7 (0.9–3.0)

404

117

29.0

0.98 (0.8–1.2)

157

55

35.0

1.5 (1.1–2.0)b

Awareness of ETS health consequences

N = 1624

N = 854

N = 3218

N = 1604

 Yes

1312

353

26.9

1.0 (Ref.)

784

188

24.0

1.0 (Ref.)

2544

722

28.4

1.0 (Ref.)

1402

332

23.7

1.0 (Ref.)

 No

312

91

29.2

1.1 (0.9–1.5)

70

25

35.7

1.9 (1.2–3.1)b

674

215

31.9

1.2 (0.98–1.4)

202

74

36.6

1.6 (1.2–2.0)a

Level of support for tobacco control

N = 1476

N = 839

N = 3558

N = 1865

 High

829

202

24.4

1.0 (Ref.)

353

82

23.2

1.0 (Ref.)

1950

532

27.3

1.0 (Ref.)

936

220

23.5

1.0 (Ref.)

 Medium

416

137

32.9

1.5 (1.2–2.0)a

431

111

25.8

1.1 (0.8–1.5)

1314

403

30.7

1.2 (1.01–1.4)c

881

256

29.1

1.3 (1.1.–1.6)c

 Low

231

64

27.7

1.2 (0.9–1.7)

55

19

34.5

1.53 (0.9–2.7)

294

114

38.8

1.7 (1.3–2.2)a

48

7

14.6

0.6 (0.3–1.3)

ap ≤ 0.001

bp ≤ 0.01

cp ≤ 0.05

N- total number of daily smokers

n - daily smokers highly dependent on nicotine (Heaviness of Smoking Index: score 4–6)

OR- odds ratio for high nicotine dependence by selected characteristics

95 % CI-95 % confidence interval

Ref. – reference group

Patterns of nicotine dependence

Based on the HSI about 30 % of Russians, 28 % of Poles, 26 % of Ukrainians and 25 % of Romanians were categorized as highly dependent on nicotine (Table 1). The univariate logistic regression analysis of the factors influencing the level of nicotine dependence is presented in Table 1, and the multivariable analysis in Table 2. Generally, the results of the multivariable model are in agreement with that obtained in the univariate analysis. Greater odds of being highly dependent on nicotine were identified for males (with OR = 1.5; p ≤ 0.001 in Poland and Romania, to OR = 2.7; p ≤ 0.001 in Russia). The significantly greater odds of high dependence were noted in all the analyzed countries among people 50–59 years of age, compared to the youngest age group (with OR = 1.7; p ≤ 0.001 in Russia, to OR = 4.8; p ≤ 0.001 in Romania). A younger age at smoking onset (<17 years of age) was a significant predictor of high nicotine dependence in all the analyzed countries. The results relating to the impact of educational level on high nicotine dependence are not consistent across all the analyzed countries (the increased risk was observed among the people with primary and vocational levels of education in Poland, primary school in Ukraine and among those with secondary level of education in Russia and Ukraine). Among the analyzed countries only in Ukraine the unemployed people had significantly higher odds of being heavy dependent on nicotine compared to the employed people (OR = 1.6; p ≤ 0.01). In Russia a slightly increased risk of being highly nicotine dependent was noted among rural populations compared to those living in urban areas (OR = 1.2; p ≤ 0.05). The likelihood of higher nicotine dependence was significantly higher for the people who had indicated that smoking was allowed at home or for those who indicated no rules regarding smoking at home, compared to the populations indicating a total ban on smoking in the home environment; with the highest odds for no rules (OR = 3.0 p ≤ 0.001 in Romania). Awareness of health consequences of active and passive smoking as well as economic status based on the Asset Index did not have any significant impact on the level of nicotine dependence in any of the analyzed countries (p > 0.05). Medium level of support for tobacco control in the two countries, namely Poland and Russia, was a significant risk factor for HSI higher than 3.
Table 2

High nicotine dependence by selected socio-demographic characteristics in men aged 26 years and over – Multivariable logistic regressiona

Variable

Poland

Romania

Russia

Ukraine

 

OR (95 % CI)

OR (95 % CI)

OR (95 % CI)

OR (95 % CI)

Sex

    

 Female

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

 Male

1.5 (1.1–2.0)b

1.5 (1.01–2.2)d

2.7 (2.1–3.5)b

2.6 (1.7–4.2)b

Age (years)

 26–29

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

 30–39

1.4 (0.8–2.3)

1.5 (0.9–2.8)

1.0 (0.8–1.3)

2.4 (1.5–3.9)b

 40–49

1.8 (1.1–3.1)d

4.1 (2.3–7.1)b

1.3 (1.0–1.7)

2.8 (1.8– 4.6)b

 50–59

1.9 (1.2–3.3)c

4.8 (2.7–8.4)b

1.7 (1.3–2.3)b

2.9 (1.8–4.8)b

 ≥60

1.5 (0.8–2.9)

2.0 (1.0–4.1)d

1.4 (0.9–2.0)

2.2 (1.1–4.3)d

Age at smoking onset

 <14

3.8 (1.8–8.4)b

5.0 (2.4–10.2)b

3.0 (2.2–4.1)b

3.1 (2.0–4.9)b

 14–17

2.5 (1.7–3.6)b

3.5 (2.1–5.8)b

1.5 (1.2–1.9)b

1.9 (1.3–2.7)b

 18–20

1.2 (0.8–1.6)

1.7 (1.0–2.7)c

1.1 (0.9–1.4)

1.2 (0.8–1.7)

 ≥21

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

Education

    

 Primary

2.6 (1.4–4.9)c

1.2 (0.5–2.9)

1.6 (0.9–2.6)

3.0 (1.7–5.4)b

 Vocational

2.0 (1.2–3.6)c

1.2 (0.6–2.1)

1.2 (1.0–1.5)

1.5 (1.0–2.2)

 Secondary

1.7 (0.95–3.0)

1.2 (0.7–2.0)

1.3 (1.0–1.6)d

2.3 (1.5– 3.5)b

 High

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

Occupational classification

 Economically not active

1.1 (0.8–1.6)

0.9 (0.6–1.4)

1.0 (0.7–1.4)

0.9 (0.6–1.5)

 Employed

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

 Unemployed

1.4 (0.9–2.1)

1.5 (0.9–2.3)

1.2 (0.9–1.6)

1.6 (1.1–2.1)c

Place of residence

 Rural

  

1.2 (1.0–1.4)d

1.3 (1.0–1.6)

 Urban

  

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

Asset Index

 High

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

 Middle

1.1 (0.8–1.5)

0.8 (0.5–1.1)

1.3 (0.9–1.8)

0.8 (0.6–1.2)

 Low

0.9 (0.4–1.8)

0.7 (0.4–1.3)

1.2 (1.0–1.4)

0.8 (0.6–1.0)

Rules regarding smoking at home

 Smoking is allowed

1.9 (1.2–3.0)c

2.0 (1.3–3.0)b

1.8 (1.4–2.2)b

2.1 (1.5–2.9)b

 Smoking is prohibited– with some exceptions

1.7 (1.1–2.6)d

1.0 (0.6–1.7)

1.3 (1.1–1.6)c

1.6 (1.2–2.1)b

 Smoking is completely prohibited

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

 No rules

2.0 (1.2–3.5)c

3.0 (1.4–6.8)b

1.5 (1.1–2.1)d

1.4 (0.8–2.5)

Awareness of smoking health consequences

 Yes

1.0 (Ref.)

  

1.0 (Ref.)

 No

1.3 (0.9–2.0)

  

1.0 (0.7–1.5)

Awareness of ETS health consequences

 Yes

 

1.0 (Ref.)

 

1.0 (Ref.)

 No

 

1.6 (0.9–2.7)

 

1.4 (0.9–2.0)

Level of support for tobacco control

 High

1.0 (Ref.)

 

1.0 (Ref.)

1.0 (Ref.)

 Medium

1.6 (1.1–2.1)c

 

1.4 (1.1–1.7)c

1.2 (0.9–1.6)

 Low

0.9 (0.6–1.3)

 

1.3 (0.7–2.2)

0.9 (0.3–2.9)

aFully adjusted model including stat

bp ≤ 0.001

cp ≤ 0.01

dp ≤ 0.05

OR- odds ratio for high nicotine dependence by selected characteristics

95 % CI-95 % confidence interval

Ref. – reference group

Quitting advice and attempts among highly nicotine dependent daily smokers

The proportion of both heavy and non-heavy nicotine dependent daily smokers who had indicated attempts at quitting during the previous 12 months was similar in all the analyzed countries, with the lowest proportion noticed in Russia (Table 3). Additionally, in Russia, differences between daily smokers highly and not-highly dependent on nicotine who indicated attempts at quitting were statistically significant (24.3 % vs. 27.7 %; p < 0.05). Differences between the countries existed regarding the percentages of daily smokers who indicated that health providers had asked if they smoked tobacco, with the highest percentages observed in Romania and the lowest in Russia and Ukraine. In Poland, differences between the heavily and not-heavily dependent smokers who had indicated that health providers had asked them about smoking status were statistically significant (68 % vs. 61 %; p < 0.05). Most of the study subjects indicated that their health provider had advised them to quit smoking (with the highest percentages in Romania among the heavily dependent smokers and the lowest percentages in Russia among the not-heavily dependent smokers). In Poland, significantly more heavily dependent smokers had indicated that they were advised to quit smoking by a health provider than the not-heavily dependent smokers (84 % vs. 77 %; p < 0.05). Unfortunately, a low proportion of the participants indicated that they were thinking about quitting smoking within the next month, as indicated by 11 % of the not-heavily dependent smokers in Poland and 1.9 % of the heavily dependent smokers in Russia. The percentages are also low for those planning to quit smoking within the next 12 months. A high proportion of the participants had no interest at all in quitting smoking. In addition, a statistically significantly higher proportion of those not thinking about quitting at all were observed among the highly dependent on nicotine smokers compared to the less addicted ones, in all the analyzed countries (51 % vs. 41 %, p ≤ 0.001 in Poland, 44 % vs. 33 %, p ≤ 0.01 in Romania, 57 % vs. 38 %; p ≤ 0.001 in Russia, 44 % vs. 28 %; p ≤ 0.001 in Ukraine).
Table 3

Quitting advice and attempts among daily smokers

 

Poland

Romania

Russia

Ukraine

N = 1939

Not-heavily dependent smokers

Heavily dependent smokers

N = 867

Not-heavily dependent smokers

Heavily dependent smokers

N = 3558

Not-heavily dependent smokers

Heavily dependent smokers

N = 1865

Not-heavily dependent smokers

Heavily dependent smokers

n = 1405 (72.4 %)

n =534 (27.6 %)

n = 647 (74.6 %)

n = 220 (25.4 %)

n = 2509 (70.5 %)

n = 1049 (29.5 %)

n = 1382 (74.1 %)

n =483 (25.9 %)

Quit attempts during the past 12 months

           

 Yes

568

430 (30.6 %)

138 (25.8 %)

301

228 (35.3 %)

73 (33.2 %)

949

694 (27.7 %)

255 (24.3 %)a

582

439 (31.8 %)

143 (29.6 %)

 No

1371

975 (69.4 %)

396 (74.2 %)

564

417 (64.7 %)

147 (66.8 %)

2605

1812 (72.3 %)

793 (75.7 %)

1282

942 (68.2 %)

340 (70.4 %)

Visited healthcare provider in the last year

            

 Yes

1171

859 (61.2 %)

312 (58.4 %)

439

341 (52.7 %)

98 (44.5 %)a

1810

1300 (36.7 %)

510 (48.9 %)c

506

396 (27.1 %)

110 (22.8 %)

 No

767

545 (38.8 %)

222 (41.6 %)

428

306 (47.3 %)

122 (55.5 %)

1736

1201 (63.3 %)

535 (51.1 %)

1358

985 (72.9 %)

372 (7725 %)

Healthcare provider asked if smoking tobaccod

           

 Yes

733

521 (60.7 %)

212 (68.2 %)a

374

296 (86.8 %)

78 (79.6 %)

864

590 (45.4 %)

274 (53.7 %)c

234

179 (45.2 %)

55 (50.0 %)

 No

436

337 (39.3 %)

99 (31.8 %)

65

45 (13.2 %)

20 (20.4 %)

946

713 (54.6 %)

236 (46.3 %)

272

217 (54.8 %)

55 (50.0 %)

Healthcare provider advised quittinge

           

 Yes

578

400 (77.1 %)

178 (84.0 %)a

318

251 (84.8 %)

67 (85.9 %)

656

442 (75.2 %)

214 (78.4 %)

183

138 (77.1 %)

45 (81.8 %)

 No

153

119 (22.9 %)

34 (16.0 %)

56

45 (15.2 %)

11 (14.1 %)

205

146 (24.8 %)

59 (21.6 %)

51

41 (22.9 %)

10 (18.2 %)

Thinking about quiting

            

 Within the next month

169

138 (11.1 %)

31 (6.4 %)b

62

49 (8.0 %)

13 (6.1 %)

85

66 (2.9 %)

19 (1.9 %)

94

70 (5.5 %)

24 (5.2 %)

 Within the next 12 month

435

347 (27.9 %)

88 (18.2 %)c

137

114 (18.5 %)

23 (10.7 %)b

277

219 (9.5 %)

58 (5.9 %)c

306

250 (19.6 %)

56 (12.1 %)c

 Someday but not within the next 12 month

367

251 (20.2 %)

116 (24.0 %)

336

252 (41.0 %)

84 (39.3 %)

1491

1143 (49.6 %)

348 (35.5 %)c

784

603 (47.3 %)

181 (39.2 %)c

 Not interested in quitting

757

509 (40.9 %)

248 (51.3 %)c

294

200 (32.5 %)

94 (43.9 %)b

1432

878 (38.1 %)

554 (56.6 %)c

552

351 (27.6 %)

201 (43.5 %)c

ap ≤ 0.05 heavily addicted smokers vs not-heavily addicted smokers

bp ≤ 0.01 heavily addicted smokers vs not-heavily addicted smokers

cp ≤ 0.001 heavily addicted smokers vs not-heavily addicted smokers

drestricted to respondents who visited a healthcare provider within the past year

erestricted to respondents who visited a healthcare provider within the past year and were asked whether they smoked

Discussion

Data from the GATS surveys in the four Eastern European countries indicated that more than 25 % of daily smokers can be classified as highly dependent on nicotine based on the Heaviness of Smoking Index. Similar patterns of nicotine dependence were observed in all the analyzed countries. Higher odds of being heavily dependent on nicotine were identified for males, older people and those who had started smoking at a young age. In addition, having fewer restrictions on smoking at home was significantly associated with a high level of nicotine dependence. Awareness of health consequences of both active and passive smoking did not have any significant impact on the level of nicotine dependence in any of the analyzed countries. A high proportion of the daily smokers were not interested in quitting at all, with a significantly higher proportion noticed among the heavily dependent smokers compared to those not-heavily dependent ones.

Our results indicate that the highly dependent on nicotine smokers constitute a quarter of Romanian daily smokers and even more in the remaining three analyzed countries. These results are in agreement with the data from GATS in three South-East Asian countries, where hardcore smokers represent 18–30 % of daily smokers [26]. A slightly higher proportion of hardcore smokers (33 %) was observed in Italy and lower in the US (5.2 % in California, 7.8 % in Missouri) and in England (16 %) [2730]. Analysis of the prevalence and psychosocial determinants of nicotine dependence in 9 countries of the former Soviet Union has indicated that in the majority of those countries the percentages of people with high nicotine dependence ranged from 20 % to 29 % [31]. The differences in the prevalence of heavy smoking among the studies may result from several factors. Firstly, they can be related to the study design or population. Secondly, different classifications of heavy smoking (based on FTND, HSI or hardcore smoking) can be responsible for the observed differences. This is illustrated by our previous analysis based on the GATS survey in Poland where hardcore smokers constituted 42 % of daily smoking men and 38 % of daily smoking women (compared 32 % and 22 % in the current assessment) [32]. In the previously published analysis hardcore smoking was defined by different variables than those used in HSI in the current assessment, which is the reason for the different results [32]. In addition, the population may differ in terms of their economic, social and cultural context. Finally, tobacco control measures including policy, prevention and intervention activities, can have a high impact on the prevalence of tobacco smoking and the proportion of people heavily dependent on nicotine among the daily smokers.

In agreement with other research, our study shows associations between a younger age at the onset of smoking and HSI [31]. This could be related to psychosocial influence on young people which has been shown to strongly affect adult smoking patterns later in life [31, 33]. The earlier the person starts smoking, the greater the risk of becoming a heavy smoker, dependent on nicotine, and with a lower chance of quitting smoking as an adult. Taking this into account, programs that motivate young people not to start smoking, or that delay the initiation of smoking, might have considerable benefit. Delaying the initiation of smoking among adolescents can result in a reduction in the heavy smoking rate and increase the potential for successful cessation. These activities should focus on education of young people about health consequences of smoking, or creating a fashion for non-smoking among the young, increasing the prices of cigarettes as well as enforcement of a minimum age for buying cigarettes [34].

Findings from GATS in all the four countries indicated that smokers who were heavily dependent on nicotine were more likely to live at homes where smoking is allowed, or where there are no rules regulating smoking at home, than the not-heavily dependent smokers. This is in agreement with other studies showing that smoke-free homes are associated with an increased cessation of smoking and reduced smoking frequencies in adult smokers [35, 36]. Creating a smoke-free environment could be one of the strategies which, in the wider perspective, could result in reducing the number of daily smokers, and among them heavy smokers.

In our analysis, we observed a higher risk of high nicotine dependence among people with a primary educational level compared to those with a high level of education (in Poland and Ukraine) and among the unemployed comparing to the employed population in Ukraine. This has been also proven in other studies showing that the less educated, unemployed and low-income smokers are more intensely dependent on nicotine, and are likely to require more support to stop smoking [31, 37]. Those studies underscore the importance of policy measures as well as prevention and cessation interventions for smokers highly dependent on nicotine, which need to take into account the social gradient in smoking patterns. The target group for such activities should cover people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. Intervention should include price increases for tobacco products, which has been shown to be the best intervention in reducing inequalities in smoking, as disadvantaged smokers were relatively more likely to respond to price increases [38]. Based on the existing estimates, a 70 % increase in the price of tobacco could prevent up to a quarter of all smoking-related deaths worldwide [34].

For the people who are addicted to nicotine, especially those with a lower socio-economic status, some forms of low or no cost help in quitting smoking are crucial. The health-care systems in countries hold the primary responsibility for treating tobacco dependence, with a variety of methods covering: smoking cessation advice incorporated into primary health-care services, and access to low-cost pharmacological therapy. Existing evidence indicates that advice from doctors, structured interventions from nurses and individual and group counselling are effective in helping people to quit smoking [39]. The guidelines to clinicians and health care delivery systems indicate that it is essential to consistently identify and document tobacco use status and treat every tobacco user seen in a health care setting [40]. In addition, taking into account that tobacco dependence treatments are both clinically effective and highly-cost effective, compared to the interventions for other clinical disorders, they should be broadly available and utilized. According to the current recommendations, all the patients who smoke ≥ 10 cigarettes per day should use pharmacotherapy at every quit attempt, unless contraindicated [41]. Nicotine replacement therapy and bupropion are modestly effective, as they help some 5 % to 15 % of the users to remain long term abstinent from smoking, depending on the product and context [42]. A new medication, varenicline, has been found to be more effective than placebo (pooled risk ratio (RR) from meta-analysis = 2.3) and bupropion (pooled RR = 1.5) [43]. It need to be pointed that new treatments that are more effective, safer, cheaper and that can be more widely applied are still needed. Treatment should be offered as one of the components of comprehensive tobacco-control programs that include restrictions on smoking in public places, increased taxes on tobacco, education emphasizing the dangers of tobacco and benefits of cessation, as well as restrictions on tobacco-product marketing. These are critical for cessation efforts, treatment utilization and the maintenance of tobacco abstinence [44]. Since the people with a heavy smoking index have knowledge of smoking hazards but are unwilling to quit, an individualized approach elaborating on the health risks and some motivational methods may be tried [26]. As it is shown in our study, differences between the countries regarding such practices exist. Health-care providers asked 80 % of the heavily dependent smokers in Romania and only 45 % in Russia and Ukraine, if they smoked tobacco. Additionally to this, a high proportion of the study participants in all the analyzed countries were not interested in quitting smoking. This indicates that the crucial role of a health-care provider including primary health care is not fully or properly utilized as a means of motivating and helping people to quit smoking. The low availability of tobacco cessation services in these countries is mainly caused by the weaknesses of the health systems.

The current analysis has several strengths. The Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) is a cross-sectional nationally representative survey and covers a large number of respondents obtained from a general population framework, assuring the reliability and validity of the results. In addition, the results presented by this study are based on the HSI, which is a frequent and reliable measure of nicotine dependence. Moreover, it considers a number of various potential predictors of nicotine dependence.

Limitations of the study also need to be pointed. Firstly, different response rates were observed in the analyzed countries. Differences in the response rates may result from the country’s socio-cultural norms, the level of trust and acceptance of being interviewed on sensitive issues However, the differences are only related to the general response rate and do not generate selection bias in the study. Secondly, for the purpose of this paper, we selected the subjects who were 26 years or older at the time of the survey, because younger people might have still been engaged in the process of initiation of smoking [45]. Moreover, the subjects under 26 might not have completed the maximum level of education [46], making this group unreliable.

Conclusions

Data from the GATS surveys in four Eastern European countries indicated that smokers highly dependent on nicotine constitute a quarter of the Romanian daily smokers and even more in the remaining countries. Similar patterns of nicotine dependence were observed in all of the investigated countries showing that male gender, younger age at the smoking onset, and fewer restrictions on smoking at home were significantly associated with higher nicotine dependence. The study also highlighted the fact that a high proportion of the participants had no interest in quitting smoking. Although the results relating to the impact of educational and occupational level on high nicotine dependence are not consistent across all the analyzed countries (with the increased risk among the people with primary and vocational levels of education in Poland, primary school in Ukraine, secondary level of education in Russia and Ukraine and unemployed people in Ukraine) they generally indicated existing of social gradient in tobacco dependence. These results underscore importance of policy measures as well as prevention and cessation interventions for smokers who are highly dependent on nicotine. While designing services for heavy smokers to quit, more emphasis should be put on the treatment of nicotine dependence, as well as on the inclusion of behavioral approaches into motivational methods. Along with an individual approach to the treatment of tobacco dependence, a supportive environment is needed to encourage smokers in their attempts to quit.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by the Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use, a program of Bloomberg Philanthropies. The authors would like to thank the Survey Team involved in the Global Adult Tobacco Surveys in Poland, Romania, Russian Federation and Ukraine and representatives of the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Foundation, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg, School of Public Health, and RTI International for their contributions. We are also thankful to the CDC, Atlanta, for making the GATS data available.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Tobacco Control, Preventive Medicine Department, Medical University of Lodz
(2)
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology, West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin
(3)
Department of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts
(4)
Department of Nutrition in Digestive Tract Diseases, Medical University of Lodz

References

  1. World Health Organization. “WHO global report: mortality attributable to tobacco,”. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Weng SF, Ali S, Leonardi-Bee J. Smoking and absence from work: systematic review and meta-analysis of occupational studies. Addiction. 2013;108(2):307–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ross HZ, Shariff S, Gilmore A. Economics of Tobacco Taxation in Ukraine. Paris: International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; 2009. [citation date: 16 October 2015], Available from: http://global.tobaccofreekids.org/files/pdfs/en/Ukraine_tobacco_taxes_report_en.pdf.Google Scholar
  4. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), Russian Federation Country Report, Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation, 2009. [citation date: 16 October 2015]. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/en_tfi_gats_russian_countryreport.pdf
  5. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), Ukraine Country Report, Ministry of Health, Ukraine, 2010. [citation date: 16 October 2015]. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/en_tfi_gats_ukraine_report_2010.pdf
  6. US Bureau of the Census. International Data Base. Washington, DC: US Bureau of the Census; 2007. [citation date: December 1, 2014]; available from: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/tables.html.
  7. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), Poland Country Report, Ministry of Health, Poland, 2009–2010. [citation date: 16 October 2015]. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/en_tfi_gats_poland_report_2010.pdf
  8. Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS), Romania Country Report, Ministry of Health Romania, 2011. [citation date: 16 October 2015]. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/survey/gats/gats_romania_report_2011.pdf
  9. World Health Organization. Systematic review of the link between tobacco and poverty. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. World Health Organization. Tobacco and inequalities. Guidance for addressing inequalities in tobacco-related harm. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta U.S.: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health; 2007.Google Scholar
  12. Chaiton MO, Cohen JE, McDonald PW, Bondy SJ. The Heaviness of Smoking Index as a predictor of smoking cessation in Canada. Addict Behav. 2007;32:1031–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaleta D, Korytkowski P, Makowiec-Dabrowska T, Usidame B, Bak-Romaniszyn L, Fronczak A. Predictors of long-term smoking cessation: results from the global adult tobacco survey in Poland (2009–2010). BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1020.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaleta D, Usidame B, Dziankowska-Zaborszczyk E, Makowiec-Dąbrowska T: Correlates of Cessation Success among Romanian Adults. BioMed Res Int. 2014;2014:Art. ID 675496Google Scholar
  15. Hymowitz N, Cummings M, Hyland A, Lynn W, Pechacek T, Hartwell T. Predictors of smoking cessation in a cohort of adult smokers followed for 5 years. Tobacco Control. 1997;6:57–62.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Foulds J, Gandhi KK, Steinberg MB, Richardson DL, Williams JM, Burke MV, et al. Factors associated with quitting smoking at a tobacco dependence treatment clinic. Am J Health Behav. 2006;30(4):400–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahende JW, Malarcher AM, Teplinskaya A, Asman KJ. Quit Attempt Correlates among Smokers by Race/Ethnicity. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(20):3871–88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Global Tobacco Surveillance System. Global adult tobacco survey. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999.Google Scholar
  19. Global Adult Tobacco Survey. [citation date: 27 November 2015]. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/gats/en/
  20. Kaleta D, Makowiec-Dąbrowska T, Dziankowska-Zaborszczyk E, Fronczak A. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of daily cigarette smoking in Poland: results from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (2009–2010). IJOMEH. 2012;25(2):126–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lim KH, Idzwan MF, Sumarni MG, Kee CC, Amal NM, Lim KK, et al. Heaviness of smoking index, number of cigarettes smoked and the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence among adult male Malaysians. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(1):343–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Borland R, Yong HH, O’Connor RJ, Hyland A, Thompson ME: The reliability and predictive validity of the Heaviness of Smoking Index and its two components: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(Suppl.1):S45-50.Google Scholar
  23. de Leon J, Diaz FJ, Becona E, Gurpegui M, Jurado D, Gonzalez-Pinto A. Exploring brief measures of nicotine dependence for epidemiological surveys. Addict Behav. 2003;28(8):1481–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J. Measuring the heaviness of smoking: Using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Br J Addict. 1989;84(7):791–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kozlowski LT, Porter CQ, Orleans CT, Pope MA, Heatherton T. Predicting smoking cessation with selfreported measures of nicotine dependence: FTQ, FTND, and HSI. Drug Alcohol Depend. 1994;34(3):211–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kishore J, Jena PK, Bandyopadhyay C, Swain M, Das S, Banerjee I. Hardcore Smoking in Three South-East Asian Countries: Results from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(2):625–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferketich AK, Gallus S, Colombo P, Pacifici R, Zuccaro P, La Vecchia C. Hardcore smoking among Italian men and women. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2009;18(2):100–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Augustson E, Marcus S. Use of the current population survey to characterize subpopulations of continued smokers: a national perspective on the “hardcore” smoker phenomenon. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6:621–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sorg A, Xu J, Doppalapudi SB, Shelton S, Harris JK. Hardcore smokers in a challenging tobacco environment: the case of Missouri. Tob Control. 2011;20:388e90.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Jarvis M, Wardle J, Waller J, Owen L. Prevalence of hardcore smoking in England, and associated attitudes and beliefs: cross-sectional study. BMJ. 2003;326:1061e6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts B, Gilmore A, Stickley A, Kizilova K, Prohoda V, Rotman D, et al. Prevalence and psychosocial determinants of nicotine dependence in nine countries of the former Soviet Union. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15(1):271–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaleta D, Usidame B, Dziankowska-Zaborszczyk E, Makowiec-Dąbrowska T, Leinsalu M. Prevalence and factors associated with hardcore smoking in Poland: findings from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (2009–2010). BMC Public Health. 2014;11(14):583.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Boden JM, Jenkin G. Childhood social disadvantage and smoking in adulthood: Results of a 25-year longitudinal study. Addiction. 2007;102:475–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic. “The EMPOWER package,”. Geneva: WHO; 2008.Google Scholar
  35. Messer K, Mills AL, White MM, Pierce JP. The effect of smoke-free homes on smoking behavior in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(3):210–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Mills AL, Messer K, Gilpin EA, Pierce JP. The effect of smoke-free homes on adult smoking behavior: a review. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(10):1131–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Siahpush M, McNeill A, Borland R, Fong GT: Socioeconomic variations in nicotine dependence, self-efficacy, and intention to quit across four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006;15(Suppl.3):iii71–75.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas S, Fayter D, Misso K, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, et al. Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: Systematic review. Tobacco Control. 2008;17:230–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Lancaster T, Stead L, Silagy C, Sowden A. Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library. BMJ. 2000;321(7257):355–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Surgeon General’s Report. The Health Consequences of Smoking— 50 Years of Progress. [citation date: 27 November 2015]. Available from: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/sgr50-chap-14-app14-4.pdf
  41. Nides M. Update on pharmacologic options for smoking cessation treatment. Am J Med. 2008;121(4 Suppl 1):20–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Etter JF, Stapleton JA. Nicotine replacement therapy for long-term smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Tob Control. 2006;15(4):280–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Cahill K, Stead LF, Lancaster T: Nicotine receptor partial agonists for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; Issue 4. Art. No.: CD006103. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006103.pub6.
  44. World Health Organization. Tools for Advancing Tobacco Control in the XXI st century: policy recommendations for smoking cessation and treatment of tobacco dependence. Tools for public health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.Google Scholar
  45. Emery S, Gilpin EA, Ake C, Farkas AJ, Pierce JB. Characterizing and identifying ‘hard-core’ smokers: implications for further reducing smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:387–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Fernández E, Garcia M, Schiaffino A, Borràs JM, Nebot M, Segura A. Smoking initiation and cessation by gender and educational level in Catalonia, Spain. Prev Med. 2001;32:218–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kaleta et al. 2015

Advertisement