1 Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan; 2 Dipartimento del Farmaco, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome; 3 Istituto DOXA, Gallup International Association, Milan; 4 Istituto di Statistica Medica e Biometria, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
* Correspondence to: Dr S. Gallus, Laboratorio di Epidemiologia Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Via Eritrea 62, 20157 Milan, Italy. Tel: +39-02-39 014-526; Fax: +39 02-33 200-231; Email: gallus{at}marionegri.it
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Materials and methods:: To obtain estimates of tobacco dependence on a population level, a six-item Fagerström questionnaire was used in two surveys, conducted in 20022003 on a sample of 6773 individuals aged 15 years or over, representative of the Italian adult population.
Results:: Overall, 27.1% of Italian adults described themselves as current cigarette smokers (32.2% of men, 22.4% of women). Of all smokers, 42.8% were classified as very low dependent, 28.6% as low dependent, 11.0% as intermediate, 13.8% as high and only 3.8% as very high dependent. The proportions of very low/low dependent were 67.4% in men and 76.8% in women. Those of high/very high dependent smokers were 21.4% in men and 12.5% in women, but only 2.8% at age 1517 years and 8.4% at age 1824 years. Only 23% of smokers, moreover, found it difficult to avoid smoking in places where smoking was forbidden.
Conclusions:: The observation that over two-thirds of smokers on a population level in Italy report low or very low dependence has useful implication for intervention on stopping smoking, particularly in the young, who appear to be low dependent. However, in this age group cessation rates were comparatively low.
Key words: epidemiology, Italy, population surveys, smoking
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To obtain more detailed and valid information on the issue, a six-item Fagerström questionnaire was utilized in two representative surveys of smoking in Italy [4, 5
, 8
].
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Population aged 1524 years was oversampled by about 400 subjects in the 2003 survey, to produce more stable estimates, in particular when investigating the level of dependence in age subgroups (1517 and 1825 years).
Information was collected on general socio-demographic characteristics and on smoking behaviour, including smoking status (never/ex/current smoker) and number of cigarettes smoked per day. A smoker was defined as a subject who had smoked at least an average of one cigarette/day for 1 year. Smokers were also questioned on the number and outcome of attempts to stop smoking, and on their level of tobacco dependence, using a six-item Fagerström questionnaire [1, 2
]. This included the following questions [choices (corresponding weight in brackets)]:
The score used to classify the dependence was: 02, very low; 34, low; 5, intermediate; 67, high; 810, very high dependence.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Table 2 shows the mean values of the Fagerström dependence score by sex and age group in strata of number and outcome of attempts to stop smoking. In all smokers combined, the mean value was 3.14 (3.40 for males and 2.79 for females). The mean score was 2.98 for smokers who never tried to give up smoking (61%) and 3.39 for those who tried at least once (39%). The mean value for those who tried to give up using pharmacological and/or psychological support was 4.02. The mean values for smokers of <20 and 20 cigarettes/day were 1.99 (standard deviation, SD 1.78) and 4.95 (SD 1.89), respectively.
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
The mean scores of smokers who tried to give up at least once were systematically higher than those of who never tried. This is likely to be explained by the fact that, among smokers who tried to give up, more severely addicted ones selectively failed to quit. Table 2 shows that differences in terms of mean scores between those who never tried and those who tried at least once to give up are not totally explained by age or sex. This is even more evident in current smokers who failed to give up with the help of a pharmacological and/or psychological support. Fagerström et al. [2] had noticed that smokers who seek help in stopping smoking are much more dependent than the average smoker.
Smokers of 20 cigarettes/day had a 2.5-fold mean dependence score than smokers of <20 cigarettes/day. This is, however, due to the fact that the definition of the score is influenced by the number of cigarettes/day itself.
The observation that more than two-thirds of Italian smokers reported low or very low dependence levels indicates the large scope for counselling and intervention on stopping smoking on a population level. Also of interest is the extremely low proportion of smokers aged 1524 years reporting high dependence to tobacco, whereas more than 60% of this age group reported very low, and another 25% low dependence. This indicates that, in most regular smokers, tobacco dependence is not yet established in adolescents and the young, who are also a key target of the tobacco industry promotion [911
]. Thus, focus of antismoking intervention in adolescents and the young is a clear priority. In a study on young adults from the USA, the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence predicted cessation, with non-dependent smokers being four times more likely to quit [12
, 13
]. The issue of nicotine dependence in the young, and especially in adolescents is, however, still open to discussion, since the classic measures of nicotine dependence (using the Fagerström questionnaire) showed that dependence develops only after several years of regular smoking [14
16
]. However, recent evidence suggests that symptoms of dependence occur even with the irregular, sporadic smoking that characterises the early stages of smoking onset [14
, 17
, 18
]. Moreover, compared with adults, young smokers absorb more nicotine per cigarette, even with their first few cigarettes [15
, 19
, 20
]. Along this line, data from North America showed that although substantial proportions of young smokers tried to quit, smoking cessation success rates were comparatively low [15
]. Thus, there is still a lack of a widely accepted tool to measure nicotine dependence in the youth [14
, 15
, 17
].
A few additional aspects of these surveys deserve comment. Despite the large proportion of subjects reporting low dependence, only a minority (39.0%) of current smokers had made attempts to stop. This underlines the importance of extending information on the benefits of quitting smoking, since subjects who stop smoking, even well into middle age, avoid most of their subsequent risk of lung cancer, myocardial infarction and other tobacco-related diseases [21, 22
].
Sixteen per cent of Italian adults described themselves as ex-smokers, and most of them (87%) had quit without any support. This reflects the low proportion of smokers describing themselves as highly or very highly dependent. Still, an extremely low proportion, around 3%, of ex-smokers had used psychological (2.4%) or pharmacological support (0.8%). This indicates the potential larger scope for intervention using valid supports on a selected proportion of highly dependent smokers [2326
].
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
Received for publication May 18, 2004. Revision received December 15, 2004. Accepted for publication December 16, 2004.
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2. Fagerström KO, Kunze M, Schoberberger R et al. Nicotine dependence versus smoking prevalence: comparisons among countries and categories of smokers. Tob Control 1996; 5: 5256.[Abstract]
3. Boyle P, Gandini S, Robertson C et al. and the International Smokers Survey Group. Characteristics of smokers' attitudes towards stopping. Survey of 10 295 smokers in representative samples from 17 European countries. Eur J Public Health 2000; 10(Suppl 3): 514.[Abstract]
4. Gallus S, Colombo P, Scarpino V et al. Smoking in Italy, 2002. Tumori 2002; 88: 453456.[ISI][Medline]
5. Gallus S, La Vecchia C. A population-based estimate of tobacco dependence. Eur J Publ Health 2004; 14: 9394.
6. Fagerström KO, Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT. Nicotine addiction and its assessment. Ear Nose Throat J 1990; 69: 763765.[Medline]
7. Hurt RD, Dale LC, Fredrickson PA et al. Nicotine patch therapy for smoking cessation combined with physician advice and nurse follow-up. One-year outcome and percentage of nicotine replacement. JAMA 1994; 271: 595600.[Abstract]
8. Gallus S, Pacifici R, Colombo P et al. Smoking in Italy 2003, with a focus on the young. Tumori 2004; 90: 171174.[ISI][Medline]
9. Ling PM, Glantz SA. Why and how the tobacco industry sells cigarettes to young adults: evidence from industry documents. Am J Public Health 2002; 92: 908916.
10. Landman A, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry youth smoking prevention programs: protecting the industry and hurting tobacco control. Am J Public Health 2002; 92: 917930.
11. Biener L, Albers AB. Young adults: vulnerable new targets of tobacco marketing. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 326330.
12. Breslau N, Johnson EO. Predicting smoking cessation and major depression in nicotine-dependent smokers. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 11221127.
13. Breslau N, Peterson EL. Smoking cessation in young adults: age at initiation of cigarette smoking and other suspected influences. Am J Public Health 1996; 86: 214220.[Abstract]
14. O'Loughlin J, DiFranza J, Tarasuk J et al. Assessment of nicotine dependence symptoms in adolescents: a comparison of five indicators. Tob Control 2002; 11: 354360.
15. O'Loughlin J, Tarasuk J, Difranza J, Paradis G. Reliability of selected measures of nicotine dependence among adolescents. Ann Epidemiol 2002; 12: 353362.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
16. US Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing tobacco use among young people. A report of the Surgeon General, 1994 Atlanta, Georgia: Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health 1994.
17. Colby SM, Tiffany ST, Shiffman S et al. Measuring nicotine dependence among youth: a review of available approaches and instruments. Drug Alcohol Depend 2000; 59 (Suppl 1): S23S39.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
18. DiFranza JR, Rigotti NA, McNeill AD et al. Initial symptoms of nicotine dependence in adolescents. Tob Control 2000; 9: 313319.
19. McNeill AD, Jarvis MJ, Stapleton JA, West RJ, Bryant A. Nicotine intake in young smokers: longitudinal study of saliva cotinine concentrations. Am J Public Health 1989; 79: 172175.[Abstract]
20. McNeill AD, Jarvis MJ, West R et al. Saliva cotinine as an indicator of cigarette smoking in adolescents. Br J Addict 1987; 82: 13551360.[ISI][Medline]
21. Peto R, Darby S, Deo H et al. Smoking, smoking cessation, and lung cancer in the UK since 1950: combination of national statistics with two case-control studies. BMJ 2000; 321: 323329.
22. Taylor DH Jr, Hasselblad V, Henley SJ. Benefits of smoking cessation for longevity. Am J Public Health; 92: 990996. Erratum in Am J Publ Health 2002; 92: 1389.
23. Jorenby DE, Leischow SJ, Nides MA et al. A controlled trial of sustained-release bupropion, a nicotine patch, or both for smoking cessation. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 685691.
24. Moxham J. Nicotine addiction. BMJ 2000; 320: 391392.
25. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the Use of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) and Bupropion for Smoking Cessation. London, England: NICE Technology 2002; NICE Technology Appraisal Guidance No. 39.
26. Pierce JP, Gilpin EA. Impact of over-the-counter sales on effectiveness of pharmaceutical aids for smoking cessation. JAMA 2002; 11: 12601264.[CrossRef]