Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 91, Issue 5, pp 376–380 | Cite as

Knowledge About Tobacco and Attitudes Toward Tobacco Control: How Different are Smokers and Nonsmokers?

  • Mary Jane Ashley
  • Joanna Cohen
  • Shelley Bull
  • Roberta Ferrence
  • Blake Poland
  • Linda Pederson
  • Joseph Gao
Article

Abstract

Using data from a 1996 random-digit-dialling computer-assisted telephone survey of Ontario adults, 424 smokers and 1,340 non-smokers were compared regarding knowledge about the health effects of tobacco use, attitudes toward restrictions on smoking and other tobacco control measures, and predictions of compliance with more restrictions. The response rate was 65%. Smokers were less knowledgeable than nonsmokers. Smokers were also less likely to support bans on smoking in specific locations, but majorities of both groups supported some restriction in most settings. Smokers were more likely than nonsmokers to predict that most smokers would comply with more restrictions, and more than three quarters indicated that they, themselves, would comply. Sizable proportions of both groups, especially smokers, failed to appreciate the effectiveness of taxation in reducing smoking. Support for other control measures also differed by smoking status. Both knowledge and smoking status were independently associated with support for more restrictions and other tobacco control policy measures.

Résumé

À partir de données recueillies en 1996 lors d’un sondage téléphonique à numéros aléatoires assisté par ordinateur et mené auprès d’adultes de l’Ontario, nous avons comparé les réponses de 424 fumeurs et de 1 340 non-fumeurs concernant les effets du tabagisme sur la santé, les attitudes à l’égard de restrictions et d’autres mesures de contrôle de l’usage du tabac et les prédictions quant au respect de restrictions plus nombreuses. Le taux de réponse au sondage a été de 65 %. Les fumeurs avaient moins de connaissances que les non-fumeurs. Les fumeurs étaient également moins portés à appuyer l’interdiction de fumer à certains endroits précis, mais la majorité des répondants des deux groupes appuyaient l’idée d’imposer certaines restrictions dans la plupart des endroits. Les fumeurs étaient plus portés que les non-fumeurs à prédire que la plupart des fumeurs se conformeraient à un plus grand nombre de restrictions; plus des trois-quarts d’entre eux ont indiqué qu’eux-mêmes s’y conformeraient. Une grande proportion des deux groupes, surtout parmi les fumeurs, ne croyait pas que les taxes étaient un moyen efficace de réduire l’usage du tabac. Les deux groupes ne donnaient pas le même appui à d’autres mesures de contrôle du tabagisme. La connaissance et le statut de fumeur ou de non-fumeur étaient associés de façon indépendante à l’appui donné à des restrictions plus nombreuses et à d’autres mesures de contrôle de l’usage du tabac.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Peto R, Lopez AD, Boreham J, et al. Mortality from Smoking in Developed Countries 1950–2000: Indirect Estimates from National Vital Statistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Makomaski Illing EM, Kaiserman MJ. Mortality attributable to tobacco use in Canada and its regions, 1991. Can J Public Health 1995;86:257–65.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Single E, Robson L, Xie XD, Rehm J. The economic costs of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs in Canada, 1992. Addiction 1998;93:991–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaiserman MJ. The cost of smoking in Canada, 1991. Chron Dis Can 1997;18:13–19.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Health Canada, Statistics Canada, and the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Statistical Report on the Health of Canadians. Ottawa: 1999.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Health Canada. Directions. The Directional Paper of the National Strategy to Reduce Tobacco Use. An Update: 1993. Ottawa: Health Canada, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Office of Tobacco Control. Smoking By-Laws in Canada 1995. Health Canada, Health Protection Branch, Ottawa: Minister of Health Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health. Federal and Provincial Legislation in Canada: An Overview. Ottawa, March 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pederson LL, Bull SB, Ashley MJ, Lefcoe NM. A population survey in Ontario regarding restrictive measures on smoking: Relationship of smoking status to knowledge, attitudes, and predicted behaviour. Int J Epidemiol 1987;16:383–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ashley MJ, Bull SB, Pederson LL. Support among smokers and nonsmokers for restrictions on smoking. Am J Prev Med 1995;11:283–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Martin G, Steyn K, Yach D. Beliefs about smoking and health attitudes toward tobacco control measures. S Afr Med J 1992;82:241–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Velicer WF, Laforge RG, Levesque DA, Fava JL. The development and initial validation of the smoking policy inventory. Tobacco Control 1994;3:347–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laforge RG, Velicer WF, Levesque DA, et al. Measuring support for tobacco control policy in selected areas of six countries. Tobacco Control 1998;7:241–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Samuels B, Glantz SA. The politics of local tobacco control. JAMA 1991;266:2110–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Traynor MP, Begay ME, Glantz SA. New tobacco industry strategy to prevent local tobacco control. JAMA 1993;270:479–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ashley MJ, Pederson L, Poland B, et al. Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Control and Programming: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study. Final Report NHRDP Project No. 6606-6006-801. Submitted to Health Canada. March 31, 1997.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Northrup DA, Rhyne D. Smoking, Smoking Cessation, Tobacco Control and Programming: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study. Technical Documentation. North York: Institute for Social Research, York University, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Rourke D, Blair J. Improving random respondent selection in telephone surveys. J Marketing Research 1983;20:428–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Groves RM, Lyberg LE. An overview of nonre-sponse issues in telephone surveys. In: Groves RM, Biemer PP, Lyberg LE, et al. (Eds.), Telephone Survey Methodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988;191–211.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bondy S, Ialomiteanu A. Smoking in Ontario, 1991 to 1996. Can J Public Health 1997;88:225–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cox BG, Cohen SB. Methodological Issues in Health Care Surveys. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 1985.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goodman LA. On simultaneous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions. Technometrics 1965;7:247–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fleiss JL. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1981.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hosmer DWJr, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1989.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking. 25 Years of Progress. A report of the Surgeon General. 1989. Chapter 4. Trends in public beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about smoking. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control. Office of Smoking and Health. Rockville, Maryland. pages 171–258.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Law MR, Morris JK, Wald NJ. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: An evaluation of the evidence. Br Med J 1997;315:973–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Borland R, Hill D. Initial impact of the new Australian tobacco health warnings on knowledge and beliefs. Tobacco Control 1997;6:317–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Borland R. Tobacco health warnings and smoking-related cognitions and behaviours. Addiction 1997;92:1427–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Millar WJ. Reaching smokers with lower educational attainment. Health Reports 1996;8:11–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Repace JL. Risk management of passive smoking at work and at home. Saint Louis Univ Public Health Law Rev 1994;13:763–85.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Province of Ontario. Bill 119, 35th Legislature. Chapter 10, Statutes of Ontario, 1994. An Act to Prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to Regulate its Sale and Use by Others. Toronto: Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 1994.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People. A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Public Health Service. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lewk EM, Hyland A, Keerebrock N, Cummings KM. Price, public policy, and smoking in young people. Tobacco Control 1997;6 (Suppl. 2):S17–S24.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koh HK. An analysis of the successful 1992 Massachusetts tobacco tax initiative. Tobacco Control 1996;5:220–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chaloupka FJ, Wechsler H. Price, tobacco control policies and smoking among young adults. J Health Economics 1997;16:359–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Jane Ashley
    • 1
  • Joanna Cohen
    • 1
  • Shelley Bull
    • 2
  • Roberta Ferrence
    • 3
  • Blake Poland
    • 1
  • Linda Pederson
    • 4
  • Joseph Gao
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Division of Clinical EpidemiologySamuel Lunenfeld Research InstituteCanada
  3. 3.Addiction Research Foundation DivisionCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of Community Health and Preventive MedicineMorehouse School of MedicineAtlantaCanada

Personalised recommendations