4.3 Article

The low prevalence of smoking in the Northern Sweden MONICA study, 2009

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 41, Issue 8, Pages 808-811

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1403494813504836

Keywords

Dual use; MONICA; northern Sweden; smoking; snus use

Funding

  1. Swedish Match AB
  2. Reynolds American Inc. Services Company
  3. Altria Client Services
  4. British American Tobacco
  5. Kentucky Research Challenge Trust Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: The purpose of this study was to describe tobacco use in the 2009 Northern Sweden cohort of the World Health Organization Multinational Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Diseases (MONICA) study. Methods: Subjects (N = 1698) were randomly selected from population registers, stratified for age (25-74 years old) and gender, in the two northernmost Swedish counties of Norrbotten and Vasterbotten. Responses from tobacco-related questions were used to develop three mutually exclusive categories of snus use: past, current, or never use; and three comparable categories of smoking that were consistent with previous studies. Results: Among men, the prevalence of smoking (9%) and dual use (2%) remain unchanged from 2004, although the prevalence of snus use declined from 27% in 2004 to 24% in 2009. Among women, the prevalence of all forms of tobacco use declined between 2004 and 2009; smoking dropped from 16% to 11%, dual use from 2% to less than 1%, and snus use from 9% to 8%. Although overall prevalence of tobacco use was similar for younger versus older men and younger versus older women, there were notable differences in specific snus and smoking rates. Conclusions: This study confirms that use of snus was a significant factor in the low prevalence of smoking, especially among younger men and women in Northern Sweden. Furthermore, it documents that tobacco harm reduction is entirely compatible with a population-level decline in overall tobacco use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available