5 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Recent Lung Cancer Patterns in Younger Age-Cohorts in Ireland
Background: Smoking causes 85% of all lung cancers in males and 70% in females. Therefore, birth cohort analysis and annual-percent-changes (APC) in age-specific lung cancer mortality rates, particularly in the youngest age cohorts, can explain the beneficial impacts of both past and recent anti-smoking interventions. Methods: A long-term time-trend analysis (1958-2002) in lung cancer mortality rates focusing on the youngest age-cohorts (30-49 years of age) in particular was investigated in Ireland. The rates were standardised to the World Standard Population. Lung cancer mortality data were downloaded from the WHO Cancer Mortality Database to estimate APCs in death rates, using the Joinpoint regression (version 3.0) program. A simple age-cohort modelling (log-linear Poisson model) was also done, using SAS software. Results: The youngest birth cohorts (born after 1965) have almost one-fourth lower lung cancer risk relative to those born around the First World War. A more than 50% relative decline in death rates among those between 35 and 39 years of age was observed in both sexes in recent years. The youngest age-cohorts (30-39 years of age) in males also showed a significant decrease in death rates in 1998-2002 by more than 3% every five years from 1958-1962 onwards. However, death rate declines in females are slower. Conclusions: The youngest birth cohorts had the lowest lung cancer risk and also showed a significant decreasing lung cancer death rate in the most recent years. Such temporal patterns indicate the beneficial impacts of both recent and past tobacco control efforts in Ireland. However, the decline in younger female cohorts is slower. A comprehensive national tobacco control program enforced on evidence-based policies elsewhere can further accelerate a decline in death rates, especially among the younger generations
Recommended from our members
Sex-Differences in Lung Cancer Cell-Types? An Epidemiologic Study in Ireland
Objective: This study assesses the epidemiological pattern of lung cancer cell-types in Ireland, with identification of any underlying gender variations. Methods: Lung cancer incidence data, including the major cell-types: squamous-cell-carcinoma (SCC), adenocarcinoma (AC), small-cell-lung-carcinoma (SCLC) and large-cell-carcinoma (LCC) were obtained from the national cancer registry (1994–2000), together with individual characteristics, such as age, gender, smoking status, and the year of diagnosis. Age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR), male-to-female (M: F) rate ratios (RR) of ASIR for SCC and AC, as well as RR of AC: SCC according to smoking status for both sexes, were estimated. Estimated-annual-percent-changes for each of the cell-types were calculated. Results: AC incidence in females is rising annually (8.5%, p=0.008) from 1994 to 2000, while SCC is declining (−5.4%, p=0.01) in males. M: F ratios of ASIR are consistently greater than ‘one’, but converging recently. RR of AC: SCC is also approaching ‘unity’ across both sexes, irrespective of the smoking status. Conclusions: An apparent increase in lung AC incidence in females was observed in Ireland that might indicate some local environmental risk factors, in addition to changing smoking habits. The study findings do not support the hypothesis that females in general are at higher risk for lung cancer development, but tobacco and histologic-specific susceptibility cannot be ruled out
Recommended from our members
Do health policy advisors know what the public wants? An empirical comparison of how health policy advisors assess public preferences regarding smoke-free air, and what the public actually prefers
Background: Health policy-making, a complex, multi-factorial process, requires balancing conflicting values. A salient issue is public support for policies; however, one reason for limited impact of public opinion may be misperceptions of policy makers regarding public opinion. For example, empirical research is scarce on perceptions of policy makers regarding public opinion on smoke-free public spaces. Methods: Public desire for smoke-free air was compared with health policy advisor (HPA) perception of these desires. Two representative studies were conducted: one with the public (N = 505), and the other with a representative sample of members of Israel’s health-targeting initiative, Healthy Israel 2020 (N = 34), in December 2010. Corresponding questions regarding desire for smoke-free areas were asked. Possible smoke-free areas included: 100% smoke-free bars and pubs; entrances to health facilities; railway platforms; cars with children; college campuses; outdoor areas (e.g., pools and beaches); and common areas of multi-dweller apartment buildings. A 1–7 Likert scale was used for each measure, and responses were averaged into a single primary outcome, DESIRE. Our primary endpoint was the comparison between public preferences and HPA assessment of those preferences. In a secondary analysis, we compared personal preferences of the public with personal preferences of the HPAs for smoke-free air. Results: HPAs underestimated public desire for smoke-free air (Public: Mean: 5.06, 95% CI:[4.94, 5.17]; HPA: Mean: 4.06, 95% CI:[3.61, 4.52]: p < .0001). Differences at the p = .05 level were found between HPA assessment and public preference for the following areas: 100% smoke-free bars and pubs; entrances to healthcare facilities; train platforms; cars carrying children; and common areas of multi-dweller apartment buildings. In our secondary comparison, HPAs more strongly preferred smoke-free areas than did the public (p < .0001). Conclusions: Health policy advisors underestimate public desire for smoke-free air. Better grasp of public opinion by policy makers may lead to stronger legislation. Monitoring policy-maker assessment of public opinion may shed light on incongruities between policy making and public opinion. Further, awareness of policy-maker misperceptions may encourage policy-makers to demand more accurate information before making policy
Tobacco taxation: the importance of earmarking the revenue to health care and tobacco control
Background: Increases in tobacco taxation are acknowledged to be one of the most effective tobacco control interventions. This study aimed at determining the mediating role of socioeconomical status (SES) and the earmarking of revenue to healthcare and tobacco control, in influencing population support for the adoption of a 2 Euro tobacco tax increase in Greece, amid the challenging economic environment and current austerity measures. Methods: Data was collected from two national household surveys, the “Hellas Health III” survey, conducted in October 2010 and the "Hellas Tobacco survey” conducted in September 2012. Data was analyzed from 694 and 1066 respondents aged 18 years or more, respectively. Logistic regression models were fitted to measure the adjusted relationship between socio-economic factors for the former, and support for increased taxation on tobacco products for the latter. Results: In 2012 amidst the Greek financial crisis, population support for a flat two euro tax increase reached 72.1%, if earmarked for health care and tobacco control, a percentage high both among non-smokers (76%) and smokers (64%) alike. On the contrary, when not earmarked, only 43.6% of the population was in support of the equivalent increase. Women were more likely to change their mind and support a flat two-euro increase if the revenue was earmarked for health care and tobacco control (aOR = 1.70; 95% C.I: 1.22-2.38, p = 0.002). Furthermore, support for an increase in tobacco taxation was not associated with SES and income. Conclusion: Despite dire austerity measures in Greece, support for an increase in tobacco taxation was high among both smokers and non-smokers, however, only when specifically earmarked towards health care and tobacco control. This should be taken into account not only in Greece, but within all countries facing social and economic reform
Recommended from our members
Public Attitudes Regarding Banning of Cigarettes and Regulation of Nicotine
Knowledge of current public opinion is important as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) applies the best scientific evidence available to tobacco product regulation. Based on a nationally representative survey of the US adult population, we report 43% support for banning of cigarettes, 65% for reducing nicotine, and 77% for reducing nicotine if such an action could cause fewer children to become addicted to cigarettes. The FDA should consider protecting children by removing all but nonaddictive cigarettes from the marketplace