4.5 Article

Gifting and sharing cigarettes in a rural Chinese village: a cross-sectional study

期刊

TOBACCO CONTROL
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 496-500

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050956

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fulbright Program, US State Department
  2. China Medical Board Distinguished Professor Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Quantitative measurement of the prevalence of cigarette sharing and gifting in a town in rural China and evaluation of the impact of these practices on individual smoking habits and family expenditures. Methods An interview-based cross-sectional study of 105 households in rural Hunan, China tabulated household cigarette gifting and expenditures. Individual smoking and cigarette sharing activities were also recorded among 198 household members aged > 15 years who were resident for at least 6 months. Results With regard to sharing cigarettes, 92% of men and 19% of women reported being offered a cigarette within the past week. Among previous and current smokers who had attempted to quit smoking, 90% reported that their friends had tried to dissuade them from quitting by tempting them with cigarettes. Concerning gifting cigarettes, 74% of households reported sending packaged cigarettes as gifts during the Chinese New Year Festival at an average expense of 2.8% of household annual income. Although households received an average of 12.4% of their annual cigarette consumption in the form of gifts during the Chinese New Year Festival, no association was found between the amount of cigarettes received by a household and the annual cigarette consumption for that household. Conclusions Both gifting and sharing cigarettes are common in rural China. Gifting of cigarettes during the New Year Festival is a significant expenditure affecting both smoking and non-smoking households and may be an opportunity for additional mass media marketing. Among current and former smokers, sharing cigarettes in China is a major impediment to smoking cessation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据