Educational differences in smoking: international comparison
BMJ 2000; 320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7242.1102 (Published 22 April 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;320:1102
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor,
We are writing in response to Cavelaars et al paper concerning the
prevalence of smoking among high and low educated groups in twelve
European countries.
The authors have identified several limitations regarding the
comparability of the international data used. One limitation that they
have overlooked is that the data were collected over eight years, whereas
the application of these data to the smoking epidemic model implies the
study of a single point in time ("around 1990"). Adjustments could have
been made for the year of collection, sampling source and interview method
to improve the validity of the results. In particular, the Swiss data were
collected by telephone which could create significant bias against the
inclusion of the lower educated group.
The smoking epidemic model is a linear one, describing the trends of
smoking prevalence among a population over time. The use of cross-
sectional data is, therefore, not an ideal way of demonstrating it. We
suggest that it would be more useful to analyse time series data from each
country. This could then be used to chart the smoking prevalence in the
population and the ratio of smoking rates between the two educational
groups over time. In countries found not to correlate with the four stage
model it would be interesting to look at factors which may account for
this, such as cigarette pricing, advertising restrictions, health
education and awareness of health risks. This may give some insight into
prevention strategies, especially in low socioeconomic groups and women.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Dobson, Fiona Craig, Jenny Brown, Susannah McLean
Claire.Dobson@ncl.ac.uk
Stage 3 Medical students
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health,
The Medical School,
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Competing interests: No competing interests
What about the USA and Canada?
I believe the USA and Canada have much higher quit ratios( current
divided by ever smokers) than the countries surveyed in Tables 2 and 3,
therefore why don't they have lower lung cancer rates? It seems to me that
by now, the quitting in USA and Canada ought to be paying off in terms of
better health.
Competing interests: No competing interests