Journal of Public Health Policy

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 307–318 | Cite as

Population Health and the Hardcore Smoker: Geoffrey Rose Revisited

Article

Abstract

The “hardening hypothesis” suggests that as smoking prevalence decreases, lighter smokers will quit first, leaving more “hardcore” smokers in the population. At a population level, however, the weight of evidence suggests that no hardening is occurring. By understanding the lessons from Geoffrey Rose's model of population-level risk factor change, we argue that the hardening of the smoking population is not inevitable. The Rose model predicts that the effect of policy interventions, and changes in social norms, can shift the population-level risk distribution for continuing to be a smoker, making it more likely that all smokers will quit. This analysis also suggests that further reductions in smoking prevalence will not come without further changes in the underlying – and largely cultural – root causes of smoking in a population.

Keywords

smoking prevalence population change risk distribution cessation 

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008: The MPOWER package. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. Health Canada. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. McKinlay JB . The new public health approach to improving physical activity and autonomy in older populations. In: Heikkinen E, Kuusinen J, Ruoppila I, and International Association of the Universities of the Third Age. International Congress, editors. Preparation for Aging. New York: Plenum Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  4. Burns DM, Warner KE . Smokers who have not quit: is cessation more difficult and should we change our strategies? In: Marcus S, editors. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  5. Giovino GA . The tobacco epidemic in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:S318–S326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Warner KE, Burns DM . Hardening and the hard-core smoker: concepts, evidence, and implications. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5:37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Irvin JE, Hendricks PS, Brandon TH . The increasing recalcitrance of smokers in clinical trials II: Pharmacotherapy trials. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5:27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kozlowski LT, O'Connor RJ, Edwards BQ . Some practical points on harm reduction: what to tell your lawmaker and what to tell your brother about Swedish snus. Tob Control. 2003;12:372–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breland AB, Acosta MC, Eissenberg T . Tobacco specific nitrosamines and potential reduced exposure products for smokers: a preliminary evaluation of advance. Tob Control. 2003;12:317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McNeill A . Harm reduction. BMJ. 2004;328:885–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Shanks TG, Anderson CM . Changes in smoking habits in the American Cancer Society CPS I during 12 years of follow-up. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  12. Celebucki CC, Brawarsky P . Hardening of the target: evidence from Massachusetts. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Gilpin EA, Pierce JP . Demographic differences in patterns in the incidence of smoking cessation: United States 1950–1990. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burns DM . The case against the hardening of the target. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  15. Hyland A, Li Q, Bauer JE, Giovino GA, Steger C, Cummings KM . Predictors of cessation in a cohort of current and former smokers followed over 13 years. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6 (3):S363–S369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mendez D, Warner KE . Adult cigarette smoking prevalence: declining as expected (not as desired). Am J Public Health. 2004;94:251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O'Connor RJ, Giovino GA, Kozlowski LT, Shiffman S, Hyland A, Bernert JT, et al. Changes in nicotine intake and cigarette use over time in two nationally representative cross-sectional samples of smokers. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:750–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fagerstrom KO, Kunze M, Schoberberger R, Breslau N, Hughes JR, Hurt RD, et al. Nicotine dependence versus smoking prevalence: comparisons among countries and categories of smokers. Tob Control. 1996;5:52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J . Measuring the heaviness of smoking: using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Br J Addiction. 1989;84:791–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilpin EA, Lee L, Pierce JP . How have smoking risk factors changed with recent declines in California adolescent smoking? Addiction. 2005;100:117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyland A, Cummings KM . Changes in measures of nicotine dependence using cross-sectional and longitudinal data from COMMIT. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.Google Scholar
  22. Rose GA . The strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  23. Rose G . Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol. 1985;14:32–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rose G . Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J of Epidemiol. 2001;30:427–432; discussion 433–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gerdes LU, Bronnum-Hansen H, Madsen M, Borch-Johnsen K, Jorgensen T, Sjol A, et al. Trends in selected biological risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in the Danish MONICA population, 1982–1992. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:427–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merlo J, Asplund K, Lynch J, Rastam L, Dobson A, World Health Organization, M. P. Population effects on individual systolic blood pressure: a multilevel analysis of the World Health Organization MONICA Project. Am J Epidemiol y. 2004;159:1168–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tolonen H, Mahonen M, Asplund K, Rastenyte D, Kuulasmaa K, Vanuzzo D, et al. Do trends in population levels of blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors explain trends in stroke event rates? Comparisons of 15 populations in 9 countries within the WHO MONICA Stroke Project. World Health Organization Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease. Stroke. 2002;33:2367–2375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tunstall-Pedoe H, Connaghan J, Woodward M, Tolonen H, Kuulasmaa K . Pattern of declining blood pressure across replicate population surveys of the WHO MONICA project, mid-1980s to mid-1990s, and the role of medication. BMJ. 2006;332:629–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rose G, Day S . The population mean predicts the number of deviant individuals. BMJ. 1990;301:1031–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McKinlay JB, Marceau LD . Upstream healthy public policy: lessons from the battle of tobacco. Int J Health Serv. 2000;30:49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marmot M . Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365:1099–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Charlton BG . A critique of Geoffrey Rose's ‘population strategy’ for preventive medicine. J R Soc Med. 1995;88:607–610.Google Scholar
  33. Diez-Roux AV . Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson ME, Fong GT, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Driezen P, Hyland A, et al. Methods of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006;15 (3):iii12–iii18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael O Chaiton
    • 1
  • Joanna E Cohen
    • 1
    • 2
  • John Frank
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Ontario Tobacco Research UnitTorontoCanada
  3. 3.CIHR – Institute of Population and Public HealthTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Institute for Work and HealthTorontoCanada
  5. 5.Canadian Academy of Health SciencesTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations