Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
People have been surveying smokers for years, and as a
result there's a wealth of information still capable of yielding new insights or settling old scores. Two examples appear in this week's BMJ.
On p 1097 Richard Doll and colleagues use data from the British doctors
cohort to lay to rest the suggestion that smoking might protect against
dementia. Richard Doll has been studying the smoking habits of doctors
since 1951, and data from the cohort were influential in prompting
doctors to be one of the earliest groups to abandon smoking. In this
they were the vanguard of a phenomenon outlined by A E J M Cavelaars
and colleagues (p 1102): in the early phases of the "smoking
epidemic" smoking is taken up by high socioeconomic groups, then
spreads widely throughout society before staring to fall, again led by
higher socioeconomic groups, so that by the final stage smoking is
progressively more a habit of lower socioeconomic groups. Cavelaars et
al use this pattern to explain their observation that higher rates of
current and ever smoking are found among groups with lower educational levels only in northern Europe; in southern Europe, at an earlier stage
in the epidemic, men and (particularly) women with higher levels of
education smoke more. The authors also predict that socioeconomic
inequalities in morbidity and mortality related to smoking are likely
to increase in future because social gradients in smoking are steeper
in younger than in older people
In contrast to these mega-studies is the story, told by Toby Lipman and
Dawn Price, about how they tried to implement a change in their general
practice and failed. In the first place the evidence on which they
based their decision turned out not to be very sound (though later they
discovered better evidence); they thought for a time that their change
might have produced worse outcomes for patients (though it didn't);
and, although all the GPs had agreed to implement the change, in fact
they did so only patchily. As Trisha Greenhalgh says in her commentary,
we are left "on a cliffhanger in which our humbled [enthusiasts]
have sensibly abandoned their efforts to table clinical epidemiology as
`any other business' ". I won't give away the plot A final detective story is provided in the letters column by John Paul
and Janice Bates, who think that bedbug infestations may be on the
increase in Britain (p 1141). In each of four recent reported
infestations there was circumstantial evidence that the bedbugs had
travelled in luggage or furnishings, in three cases from abroad.
If patients present with nocturnally acquired bites or itchy
rashes without obvious cause, say the authors, then bedbugs should be considered.
it's on p
1114.
Footnotes
To receive Editor's choice by email each week subscribe via our website: www.bmj.com/cgi/customalert