4.2 Article

Smoking in Italy in 2015-2016: prevalence, trends, roll-your-own cigarettes, and attitudes towards incoming regulations

期刊

TUMORI JOURNAL
卷 103, 期 4, 页码 353-359

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000644

关键词

Cross-sectional survey; Italy; Roll-your-own tobacco; Smoke-free policy; Tobacco smoking

类别

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health (MADES project) [4100/22]
  2. Italian League Against Cancer (Milan)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: In 2016, a series of selective tobacco regulations, which did not affect tobacco price, came into force in Italy. To understand how Italians accepted the new norms, we analyzed data from our 2 most recent surveys among those we annually conduct on tobacco. Methods: In 2015 and 2016, we conducted 2 representative cross-sectional studies focused on the new forthcoming tobacco legislation on a total sample of 6,046 Italians aged >= 15 years. Results: Overall, 21.4% of Italians (26.0% of men and 17.2% of women) were current smokers, showing a small but significant decrease in smoking prevalence since 2007 (p for trend = 0.004). No change in smoking prevalence was observed over the last decade among the young (i.e., 15-24 years; 20.1% in 2015-2016). Roll-your-own cigarettes were the most frequent tobacco product for 8.3% of adult smokers and 19.7% of young smokers. According to the attitudes of Italians towards the new regulations, 91.3% supported the smoking ban in cars in presence of minors, 90.2% a more stringent enforcement of the tobacco sales-to-minors regulation, 74.3% the introduction of shocking pictorial images on tobacco packs, and 63.2% the removal from the market of small cigarette packs, usually purchased by the young. Conclusions: Smoking prevalence only marginally decreased over the last decade among adults, but did not decrease among the young. Roll-your-own tobacco is increasingly used by adults and young people. Before the entrance of the new norms, Italians largely supported them, particularly those targeting children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据