biotechpete Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 This is the problem with the article - they make no attempt to explain why (not even conjecture) the smoking ban - in public places - has increased smoking in private. Therefore the narrative doesn't make any sense, and that's what's so annoying. No, smoking rates have continued to decline even in private, smoking prevalence (25%-21%) and the average daily consumption (14.1-13.1 cigs/day) of smokers has decreased on trend between 2003 to 2008. Smoking at work has also decreased from 14% to 2% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 If people are living longer which is what were told and the people living longer are the ones that grew up in smoke filled homes,cars,pubs and workplaces how does that work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 They do touch on this in the paper. They quote some studies done here and in other countries after smoking bans showing immediate drops in the levels of cotinine in childrens' urine (a metabolite of nicotine). They also quote health survey data from England (published in an open access journal) for the homes and cars thing: Lee JT, Glantz SA, Millett C. Effect of smokefree legislation on adult smoking behaviour in England in the 18 months following implementation. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(6):e20933 What's weird about that paper is that is shows no overall increase in the overall trend towards cessation. But there were many more quit attempts, and importantly smoking in the home reduced significantly. I guess that perhaps the smoking ban and the media coverage of it has made more people aware of the risks of smoking in the home and perhaps particularly the effect of passive smoking on children. It seems as though there has been a social shift towards is being less acceptable to smoke in confined spaces. It's all very interesting. I think you're right, there's been a shift in attutude. Such a shame the article ignored any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Some really interesting points here, as the your post above. Thankyou for taking the time to pad it out. Says so much more than a bbc article ! A couple of points to add on though: 1. The study is over 8 years - half of which saw the country hit hard economically - is this factored in considering socio-economically deprived admissions. I know I'm wandering to chem1sts favourite area but is poor housing etcfactored in ? 2. Although there haven't been any new drugs widely available, there have been constant changes on how to take the current ones (1st 2 puffs 4 x a day, then 4 puffs twice a day, use the stupid plastic bubble thing on an inhaler that sort of thing). Is that factored in or are asthma clinics wasting their time ? No problem, I'm sure my boss will be asking me to summarise this paper tomorrow anyway. 1. The socioeconomic status (SES) was taken at one fixed time point, ergo the study didn't take account of an individual change in circumstances. I'm not sure it needed to. There was no difference in the rate of decrease between the SES groups despite the overall rate of admissions being consistently greater in the more deprived SES groups. But I suppose the overall effect of recession cannot be ruled out even though one might expect, I guess, the more deprived SES groups to be hardest hit by recession. 2. No the asthma clinics are really important. The jobs of asthma clinics in adults is to better control exacerbations. Part of the changes may be personalising the medication to your circumstances and how well you are controlled with what dose etc. I don't really know if this occurs at the same time for everyone. It's important as part of ongoing management though, I guess, this would have a similar gradual effect across the whole time period. I'm not really able to say whether the same management occurs in childhood asthma, or to what extent this may have affected the study data. ---------- Post added 21-01-2013 at 21:50 ---------- If people are living longer which is what were told and the people living longer are the ones that grew up in smoke filled homes,cars,pubs and workplaces how does that work? I don't know. The ones who are living longer are perhaps the ones who have benefited from the improvements in diet, healthcare, air quality, housing, H&S legislation etc. Probably not so much to do with the smoking ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 . Smoking at work has also decreased from 14% to 2% now that is news worthy. back to the topic - did they have a control group in the study (is that the correct phrase) to compare the fall against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biotechpete Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 back to the topic - did they have a control group in the study (is that the correct phrase) to compare the fall against? No, the problem is that there was no part of England where the law was not introduced. They compared to other areas like Scotland where the effect was seen not in 2007 but in 2006 when their ban was introduced. Also they compared to other developed nations but none have the depth of health data linked to ONS data which the NHS has. It's unique in this respect. The lack of control group is one of the reasons they stratified the data to make internal comparisons and tested their model in its fit to the actual data. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 No, the problem is that there was no part of England where the law was not introduced. They compared to other areas like Scotland where the effect was seen not in 2007 but in 2006 when their ban was introduced. Also they compared to other developed nations but none have the depth of health data linked to ONS data which the NHS has. It's unique in this respect. The lack of control group is one of the reasons they stratified the data to make internal comparisons and tested their model in its fit to the actual data. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android so, we were right to question the news report but the conclusion is valid, thanks for taking time out to explain it so simply, appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fallow Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 We are always told that smoking is bad for us, but what about this? http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 We are always told that smoking is bad for us, but what about this? http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-health-benefits-smoking-disease.html Compelling indeed Phil, when I smoked and I had a bad cough, If a sparked up another ciggy the cough would go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Absolute vindication. There is no excuse for smoking in the same space as children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.