Suchergebnisse

Introduction: This report describes the support for smoke-free policies in different settings among smokers in six European countries and the relationship between their opinions about the places where smoking should be banned and their beliefs about the harms of secondhand smoke to non-smokers. Methods: A cross-sectional survey (the ITC 6 European Country Survey, part of the EUREST-PLUS Project) was conducted using nationally representative samples of adult smokers in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain (n=6011). We describe the prevalence of agreement and support for smoke-free policies in different settings according to sociodemographics, smoking characteristics and beliefs about the danger of secondhand smoke to non-smokers. Results: There was high agreement with smoking regulations in cars with preschool children and in schoolyards of primary/secondary schools (>90% overall) and low agreement with banning smoking in outdoor terraces of bars/pubs (8.6%; 95%CI: 7.5%-9.8%) and restaurants (10.1%; 95%CI: 8.9%-11.4%). The highest support for complete smoking bans inside public places came from smokers in Poland, among women, people aged ≥25 years, who had low nicotine dependence, and who tried to quit smoking in the last 12 months. About 78% of participants agreed that tobacco smoke is dangerous to non-smokers, ranging from 63.1% in Hungary to 88.3% in Romania; the highest agreement was noted among women, the 25-54 age groups, those with higher education, low cigarette dependence, and those who tried to quit in the last 12 months. The support for complete smoking bans in public places was consistently higher among smokers who agreed that secondhand smoke is dangerous to non-smokers. Conclusions: Smokers in six European countries declared strong support for smoke-free policies in indoor settings and in settings with minors but low support in outdoor settings, particularly leisure facilities. More education is needed to increase the awareness about the potential exposure to secondhand smoke in specific outdoor areas.

Introduction: Surveillance of tobacco consumption in public places is an important measure to evaluate the impact of tobacco control interventions over time. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of smoking as seen by smokers and their smoking behaviour in public places, in six European countries. Methods: We used baseline data of the International Tobacco Control Six European countries (ITC 6E) Survey, part of the EUREST-PLUS Project, conducted in 2016 in national representative samples of about 1000 adult smokers aged 18 years and older in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain. For each setting (workplaces, restaurants, bars/pubs and discos) participants were asked whether they had seen someone smoking during their last visit there and whether they too had smoked there. We report the overall and by-country weighted prevalence of seeing someone smoking and the smokers' own smoking behaviour at each setting. We also assess the relationship between seeing someone smoking and smoking themselves at these settings. Results: The prevalence of smoking as seen by smokers was 18.8% at workplaces, with high variability among countries (from 4.7% in Hungary to 40.8% in Greece). Among smokers visiting leisure facilities in the last year, during their last visit 22.7% had seen someone smoking inside restaurants and 12.2% had smoked themselves there, while for bars/pubs the corresponding prevalences were 33.9% and 20.4%, and inside discos 44.8% and 34.8%. Conclusions: Smoking is still prevalent at leisure facilities, particularly at discos in Europe, with high variability among countries. More extensive awareness campaigns and stricter enforcement are needed to increase the compliance of smokefree regulations, especially in leisure facilities.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to examine knowledge of health effects of smoking and the impact of cigarette package warnings among tobacco users from six European Union (EU) Member States (MS) immediately prior to the introduction of the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) in 2016 and to explore the interrelationship between these two factors. Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected via face-to-face interviews with adult smokers (n=6011) from six EU MS (Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain) between June–September 2016. Sociodemographic variables and knowledge of health risks of smoking (KHR) were assessed. Warning salience, thoughts of harm, thoughts of quitting and foregoing of cigarettes as a result of health warnings were assessed. The Label Impact Index (LII) was used as a composite measure of warning effects. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to examine sociodemographic predictors of KHR and LII and the inter-relationship between knowledge and LII scores. Results: The KHR index was highest in Romania and Greece and lowest in Hungary and Germany. While the majority of smokers knew that smoking increases the risk for heart diseases, lung and throat cancer, there was lower awareness that tobacco use caused mouth cancer, pulmonary diseases, stroke, and there were very low levels of knowledge that it was also associated with impotence and blindness, in all six countries. Knowledge regarding the health risks of passive smoking was moderate in most countries. The LII was highest in Romania and Poland, followed by Spain and Greece, and lowest in Germany and Hungary. In almost all countries, there was a positive association between LII scores and higher KHR scores after controlling for sociodemographic variables. Several sociodemographic factors were associated with KHR and LII, with differences in these associations documented across countries. Conclusions: These data provide evidence to support the need for stronger educational efforts and policies that can enhance the effectiveness of health warnings in communicating health risks and promoting quit attempts. Data will serve as a baseline for examining the impact of the TPD.

Introduction: Second-hand smoke exposure has decreased in a number of countries due to widespread smoke-free legislation in public places, but exposure is still present in private settings like homes and cars. Our objective was to describe to what extent smokers implement smoking rules in these settings in six European Union (EU) Member States (MS). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a nationally representative sample of adult smokers from Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain (ITC six European countries survey, part of the EUREST-PLUS Project). We analysed data from 6011 smokers regarding smoking rules in their homes and in cars with children (no rules, partial ban, total ban). We described the prevalence of smoking rules by EU MS and several sociodemographic and smoking characteristics using prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) derived from Poisson regression models. Results: In homes, 26.5% had a total smoking ban (from 13.1% in Spain to 35.5% in Hungary), 44.7% had a partial ban (from 41.3% in Spain to 49.9% in Greece), and 28.8% had no-smoking rules (from 20.2% in Romania to 45.6% in Spain). Prevalence of no-smoking rules in cars with children was 16.2% (from 11.2% in Germany to 20.4% in Spain). The correlates of not restricting smoking in homes and cars included: low education (PR=1.51; 95%CI: 1.20-1.90 and PR=1.55; 95%CI: 1.09-2.20), smoking >30 cigarettes daily (PR=1.53; 95%CI: 1.10-2.14 and PR=2.66; 95%CI: 1.40-5.05) and no attempts to quit ever (PR=1.18; 95%CI: 1.06-1.31 and PR=1.28; 95%CI: 1.06-1.54). Conclusions: Among smokers in six EU MS, no-smoking rules were more prevalent in homes than in cars with children. Whilst awareness about the health effects of exposure to tobacco smoke on children seemed to be high, more research is needed to better understand the factors that promote private smoke-free environments.

Introduction: We compared smoking behaviors, past quit attempts, readiness to quit and beliefs about quitting among current cigarette smokers with probable anxiety or depression (PAD) to those without PAD, from six European Union (EU) Member States (MS). Methods: A nationally representative cross-sectional sample of 6011 adult cigarette smokers from six EU MS (Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain) was randomly selected through a multistage cluster sampling design in 2016. Respondents were classified as having PAD based on self-reported current diagnosis or treatment for anxiety or depression, or a positive screen for major depression, according to a validated two-item instrument. Sociodemographic characteristics, patterns of tobacco use, past quitting, readiness to quit, self-efficacy and beliefs about quitting were assessed for patients with and without PAD. Logistic regression was used to examine predictors of PAD. All analyses were conducted using the complex samples package of SPSS. Results: Among smokers sampled, 21.0% (95% CI: 19.3–22.9) were identified as having PAD. Logistic regression analyses controlling for socioeconomic variables and cigarettes smoked per day found smokers with PAD were more likely to have made an attempt to quit smoking in the past (AOR=1.48; 95% CI: 1.25–1.74), made a quit attempt in the last 12 months (AOR=1.75; 95% CI: 1.45–2.11), and report lower self-efficacy with quitting (AOR=1.83; 95% CI: 1.44–2.32) compared to smokers without PAD. Additionally, it was found that individuals with PAD were more likely to report having received advice to quit from a doctor or health professional and having used quitline support as part of their last quit attempt. Conclusions: Smokers with PAD report a greater interest in quitting in the future and more frequent failed quit attempts than smokers without PAD; however, the high rates of untreated anxiety or depression, nicotine dependence, low confidence in the ability to quit, infrequent use of cessation methods, as well as socioeconomic factors may make quitting difficult.

Introduction: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) use has grown significantly in some European Union (EU) Member States (MS). A better understanding of the exposure to secondhand e-cigarette aerosols (SHA) is necessary to develop and implement comprehensive regulations on e-cigarette use in public places. This study aims to assess the observation of e-cigarette use in public places, the self-reported exposure to SHA, and the level of users' comfort using e-cigarettes in the presence of others. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of the Wave 1 International Tobacco Control 6 European Countries Survey recruiting adult smokers (n=6011) across six EU MS: Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain, within the EURESTPLUS Project. A descriptive analysis was conducted to estimate the prevalence (%) of observed e-cigarette use in different places, frequency of self-reported exposure to SHA, and level of comfort using e-cigarettes in the presence of others. Results: In all, 31.0% of smokers observed others using e-cigarette in public places, 19.7% in indoor places where smoking is banned, and 14.5% indoors at work. Almost 37% of smokers reported to be ever exposed to SHA, ranging from 17.7% in Spain to 63.3% in Greece. The higher prevalence of observed e-cigarette use and passive exposure to SHA was reported by smokers of younger age, of higher educational level and those being current or former e-cigarette users. Part (8.8%) of the smokers who were also e-cigarette users reported feeling uncomfortable using e-cigarettes in the presence of others. Conclusions: A third of smokers from six EU MS reported being exposed to SHA. Prevalence differences were observed among the countries. In the context of scarce evidence on long-term health effects of exposure to SHA, precautionary regulations protecting bystanders from involuntary exposure should be developed.

Population-level interventions represent the only real approach for combatting the tobacco epidemic. There is thus great importance in conducting rigorous evaluation studies of tobacco control policies and regulations such as those arising from the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the European Union's 2014 Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). The ITC 6 European Countries Survey, a component of the Horizon 2020 Project entitled European Regulatory Science on Tobacco: Policy Implementation to Reduce Lung Disease (EUREST-PLUS), was created to evaluate and impact of the TPD in six EU Member States: Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain. In each country, a cohort survey of a representative national sample of 1000 smokers was conducted. This paper describes the conceptual model, methodology, and initial survey statistics of Wave 1 of the ITC 6E Survey, which was conducted June–September 2016. The ITC 6E Survey's conceptual model, methodology, and survey instrument, were based on the broader 29-country ITC Project cohort studies, which have been conducted since 2002. The commonality of methods and measures allow a strong potential for cross-country comparisons between the 6 EU countries of the ITC 6E Project and 3 other EU countries (England, France, The Netherlands) in the ITC Project, as well as the broader set of ITC countries outside the EU.

Introduction: Tobacco tax policies have been proven to be effective in reducing tobacco consumption, but their impact can be mitigated through price-minimizing behaviours among smokers. This study explored the purchase sources of tobacco products and the price paid for tobacco products in six EU member states. Methods: Data from Wave 1 of the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Survey collected from nationally representative samples of adult smokers in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain (ITC 6E Survey) were used. The ITC 6E Survey sample, conducted in 2016, randomly sampled 6011 adult cigarette smokers aged 18 years or older. Information on purchase sources of tobacco was examined by country. The difference in reported purchase price by purchase location (store vs non-store/other) was analysed using linear regression for each country. Results: Tobacco purchasing patterns and sources varied widely between countries. Non-store/other purchases were very rare in Hungary (0.1%) while these types of purchases were more common in Germany (5.1%) and Poland (8.6%). Reported prices of one standard pack of 20 cigarettes were highest in Germany (4.80€) and lowest in Hungary (2.45€). While nonstore purchases were only made by a minority of smokers (>10% in all countries), the price differential was considerable between store and non-store/other sources, up to 2€ per pack in Greece and in Germany. Conclusions: The results suggest a huge variation of purchasing sources and price differentials between store and non-store purchasing sources across the six EU member states examined. While the cross-sectional data precludes any causal inference, supply chain control through licensing as introduced in Hungary and the lack of such measures in the other countries might nevertheless be a plausible explanation for the large differences in the frequency of non-store purchases observed in this study.