Two Key Studies of Prevalence Rates of Smoking (DP IB Psychology)
Revision Note
Key study one: Valente et al. (2005)
Aim:
To investigate if popular students are more likely to start smoking and if the association between popularity and smoking varies by gender and/or ethnicity
Participants:
1,486 sixth and seventh graders (aged 12-14 years old) in 16 middle schools in southern California
Procedure:
Three in-school student surveys were administered:
a baseline, measuring gender, ethnicity, age, grades, susceptibility to smoke, and smoking behaviour
a survey two months later, measuring social networks
a 1-year follow-up survey similar to the baseline
Susceptibility to smoke was measured as a refusal to commit to not smoke in the future
Smoking was defined as ‘if you have ever taken a puff or smoked a cigarette’
Students who were older, White, and had a parent who smoked were more likely to increase their smoking risk
Popularity was the number of times a student was chosen as a friend by other students in the sample
Results:
Popularity was associated with increased susceptibility to smoke and smoking, with the most popular students five times more likely to smoke than students who were averagely popular
Unpopular or isolated students were also likely to be susceptible to smoking or had actually already started smoking
The association was stronger for girls than boys, but present for all groups, and not significantly mediated by age, ethnicity or gender
Conclusion:
Popular students are more visible and so they contribute more noticeably to the establishment of social norms, like adolescent smoking
When popular adolescents start to smoke, it sends a signal to other adolescents that smoking is acceptable and even desirable
Popular students are connected socially to a larger number of students and so they might contribute disproportionately to the process of peer influence on smoking
Unpopular students’ increased susceptibility may be due to friendships outside the school social network
The most popular students were most likely to be susceptible to smoking or to smoke
Examiner Tip
Questions on prevalence are best answered looking at variables like age, gender, ethnicity, or, as in this case, popularity. It is not enough to state the prevalence rate of a behaviour; the data needs to be interpreted and the implications analysed.
Evaluation of Valente et al. (2005)
Strengths
Valente et al’s quantitative data can be used to inform school health programmes of the need to create a cultural climate in which smoking is not perceived as desirable
This was a detailed analysis that looked at the possible effects of several variables in order to identify that it was popularity itself that was associated with smoking
Limitations
The research was conducted in multi-ethnic schools in southern California and so the results may not be generalisable outside of this student population
This is a correlational study and so the relationship between popularity and smoking has bidirectional ambiguity that needs a more qualitative approach to untangle
Key study two: Strassman et al. (2022)
Aim:
To compare the smoking prevalence and lung function of Danish residents (indoor smoking ban since 2007) and Swiss residents (indoor smoking ban since 2010)
Participants:
A random sample of 21,045 Danish adults from a sample representative of the general population
A random sample of 12, 223 Swiss adults from a similar representative population sample
The mean ages were 61 years for the Danish sample and 51 years for the Swiss sample
Both samples were 50% female and 50% male
Over the five years of the experiment over 62,000 Danish and nearly 32,000 Swiss were questioned and tested
Procedure:
Natural experiment with a quasi-experimental design
Baseline characteristics of the two groups were collected in 2005 and 2006, before either country had banned indoor smoking:
Danish % | Swiss % | |
Never smoked | 38 | 52 |
Ex-smokers | 40 | 24 |
Still smoking | 23 | 24 |
Lung function | Lower | Higher |
Baseline characteristics of a representative sample of the participants before the Danish nationwide indoor smoking ban in 2007
Smoking prevalence rates and lung function in a representative sample were measured each year between 2005 and 2010
These measurements were taken to compare the data for Denmark and Switzerland before and for three years during the indoor smoking ban in Denmark that was introduced in 2007
Results:
Along with worldwide trends, the prevalence of current smokers in both countries decreased between 2005 and 2010
The decrease was larger in the Danish (experimental) group compared with the Swiss (control) group, in both males and females, especially after 2007
Lung function improved in all Danish groups after 2007, even in those who had never smoked
The Danish sample’s lung function, which had been lower than the Swiss participants’ lung function in 2005, was higher in 2010
Conclusion:
A nationwide indoor smoking ban is associated with a reduction in smoking and an increase in lung function
A nationwide indoor smoking ban also improves the lung function of those previously subjected to secondhand smoke
Evaluation of Strassman et al. (2022)
Strengths
This large-scale study can be used as guidance for policymakers to make evidence-based decisions related to respiratory health in the general population
The comparison with an appropriate control group suggests evidence for a causal relationship between smoking ban, prevalence and lung function changes
Limitations
There was no longitudinal lung function data available, which would have allowed a pre–post experiment comparison within the same individuals
The Swiss and Danish participants may have had unknown differences in health that affected the results, though with such large samples tested over five years, the chances of this making a significant difference are small
Worked Example
The question is: ‘Discuss prevalence rates of one or more health problems.’ [22]
The command term “discuss” requires you to offer a considered and balanced review of the significance of the prevalence rates. (It’s not enough just to describe them). Opinions or conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence. Here is a paragraph for guidance.
Prevalence rates are the frequency of a health problem within a certain population. Lifetime prevalence is the proportion of people in a population that have ever had a particular health problem, while point prevalence reports the proportion of a population that has a health problem at a specific point in time. Prevalence rates change over time and differ between populations. Prevalence is affected by the methods used to gather the data. This essay will discuss the prevalence rates of cigarette smoking. The World Health Organisation gathers data on tobacco use every two years and publishes it in order to publicise trends and inform government health initiatives. One such initiative was introduced by the Danish government in 2007, and by the Swiss government in 2010 - the nationwide ban on indoor smoking. This provided the perfect opportunity for research allowing comparison between two populations of similar demographic makeup, with one as a control group, where indoor smoking was still allowed and one as the experimental group, where the smoking ban was in place. Strassman et al. (2022) conducted a study to compare the smoking prevalence and lung function of these two populations, between 2005 and 2010.
You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?