4.5 Article

Smoking rates in the staff of a military field hospital before and after wartime deployment

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE
Volume 97, Issue 1, Pages 20-22

Publisher

ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.97.1.20

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the past, high rates of cigarette smoking have been reported in the British Armed Forces. We conducted an anonymous questionnaire survey in the 623 employees and attached staff of 34 Field Hospital on their sixth week of deployment to Iraq, in the course of Gulf War II. Information was sought on smoking status before and during the deployment, and self-declared reasons for smoking. 556 questionnaires were returned (response rate 89%). The median age of respondents was 33.3 SD 7.9 years (range 18-62) and 61% were male. Before deployment the number of regular smokers was 160 (29%) but it had now risen by 52 to 212 (38%). Of the extra smokers 33 were restarting an old habit but 19 were first-timers. Moreover, those who were regular smokers before deployment increased their daily consumption from a mean of 15 cigarettes to 21. Smoking rates did not differ between clinical and non-clinical staff or between men and women; the rates were lower in officers than in non-officers, and in reservists than in regular Army personnel. The reasons most commonly cited for starting smoking or increasing consumption were boredom, social factors and stress. Few respondents could recall having received smoking-related health education during previous service with the military. Smoking rates in this medical unit increased substantially during the overseas deployment. There were no data on cigarette consumption after return to ordinary duties, so we cannot say whether these effects are short-term or long-term. However, even the pre-existing rate of 42% in regular army personnel is high enough to demand urgent action by an employer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available