Perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting in hard-core smokers: a focus group study

BMC Public Health

Dike van de Mheen²  Michelle Snelleman⁴  Elske Wits¹  Barbara van Straaten⁴  Marloes Kleinjan³  Tim M Schoenmakers⁴  Jeroen Bommelé⁴ 

[1] IVO Addiction Research Institute, Heemraadssingel 194, 3021 DM Rotterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 6166200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands;Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen, Montessorilaan 3, 6525 HR Nijmegen, The Netherlands;Erasmus Medical Centre, Dr. Molewaterplein 50, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Netherlands;    Focus groups;    Quitting;    Smoking;    Pros and cons;    Hard-core smokers;   

Others  :  1132545
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-175

 received in 2013-10-28, accepted in 2014-02-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In the last decade, so-called hard-core smokers have received increasing interest in research literature. For smokers in general, the study of perceived costs and benefits (or ‘pros and cons’) of smoking and quitting is of particular importance in predicting motivation to quit and actual quitting attempts. Therefore, this study aims to gain insight into the perceived pros and cons of smoking and quitting in hard-core smokers.

Methods

We conducted 11 focus group interviews among current hard-core smokers (n = 32) and former hard-core smokers (n = 31) in the Netherlands. Subsequently, each participant listed his or her main pros and cons in a questionnaire. We used a structural procedure to analyse the data obtained from the group interviews and from the questionnaires.

Results

Using the qualitative data of both the questionnaires and the transcripts, the perceived pros and cons of smoking and smoking cessation were grouped into 6 main categories: Finance, Health, Intrapersonal Processes, Social Environment, Physical Environment and Food and Weight.

Conclusions

Although the perceived pros and cons of smoking in hard-core smokers largely mirror the perceived pros and cons of quitting, there are some major differences with respect to weight, social integration, health of children and stress reduction, that should be taken into account in clinical settings and when developing interventions. Based on these findings we propose the ‘Distorted Mirror Hypothesis’.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Bommelé et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hughes JR: The case for hardening of the target. In Those Who Continue to Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions? (Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 15; NIH Publication No. 03-5370). Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 2001:33-39.
• [2]Costa ML, Cohen JE, Chaiton MO, Ip D, McDonald P, Ferrence R: “Hardcore” definitions and their application to a population-based sample of smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2010, 12:860-864.
• [3]Warner K, Burns D: Hardening and the hard-core smoker: concepts, evidence, and implications. Nicotine Tob Res 2003, 5:37-48.
• [4]Chaiton MO, Cohen JE, Frank J: Population health and the hardcore smoker: Geoffrey Rose revisited. J Public Health Policy 2008, 29:307-318.
• [5]Lund M, Lund KE, Kvaavik E: Hardcore smokers in Norway 1996–2009. Nicotine Tob Res 2011, 13:1132-1139.
• [6]Emery S, Gilpin EA, Ake C, Farkas AJ, Pierce JP: Characterizing and identifying “hard-core” smokers: implications for further reducing smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health 2000, 90:387-394.
• [7]Dijkstra A, De Vries H, Bakker M: Pros and cons of quitting, self-efficacy, and the stages of change in smoking cessation. J Consult Clin Psychol 1996, 64:758-763.
• [8]McEvoy PM, Nathan P: Perceived costs and benefits of behavioral change: reconsidering the value of ambivalence for psychotherapy outcomes. J Clin Psychol 2007, 63:1217-1229.
• [9]Velicer WF, DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO, Brandenburg N: Decisional balance measure for assessing and predicting smoking status. J Pers Soc Psychol 1985, 48:1279-1289.
• [10]Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH: Social learning theory and the health belief model. Heal Educ Behav 1988, 15:175-183.
• [11]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991, 50:179-211.
• [12]Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Transtheoretical therapy: toward a more integrative model of change. Psychother Theory Res Pract 1982, 19:276-288.
• [13]Bandura A: Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol 1989, 44:1175-1184.
• [14]Jarvis MJ, Wardle J, Waller J, Owen L: Prevalence of hardcore smoking in England, and associated attitudes and beliefs: cross sectional study. BMJ 2003, 326:1061.
• [15]Brandon TH, Baker TB: The smoking consequences questionnaire: the subjective expected utility of smoking in college students. Psychol Assess 1991, 3:484-491.
• [16]Rohsenow DJ, Abrams DB, Monti PM, Colby SM, Martin R, Niaura RS: The smoking effects questionnaire for adult populations. Addict Behav 2003, 28:1257-1270.
• [17]Velicer WF, Norman GJ, Fava JL, Prochaska JO: Testing 40 predictions from the transtheoretical model. Addict Behav 1999, 24:455-469.
• [18]Hendricks PS, Wood SB, Baker MR, Delucchi KL, Hall SM: The smoking abstinence questionnaire: measurement of smokers’ abstinence-related expectancies. Addiction 2011, 106:716-728.
• [19]De Vries H, Mudde AN, Dijkstra A, Willemsen MC: Differential beliefs, perceived social influences, and self-efficacy expectations among smokers in various motivational phases. Prev Med (Baltim) 1998, 27(5 Pt 1):681-689.
• [20]De Vries H, Backbier E: Self-efficacy as an important determinant of quitting among pregnant women who smoke: the ø-pattern. Prev Med (Baltim) 1994, 23:167-174.
• [21]Augustson E, Marcus S: Use of the current population survey to characterize subpopulations of continued smokers: a national perspective on the “hardcore” smoker phenomenon. Nicotine Tob Res 2004, 6:621-629.
• [22]MacIntosh H, Coleman T: Characteristics and prevalence of hardcore smokers attending UK general practitioners. BMC Fam Pract 2006, 7:24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [23]Chassin L, Presson CC, Rose JS, Sherman SJ: From adolescence to adulthood: age-related changes in beliefs about cigarette smoking in a midwestern community sample. Heal Psychol 2001, 20:377-386.
• [24]Goldman KD, Schmalz KJ: Focus on focus groups! Health Promot Pract 2001, 2:14-19.
• [25]Krueger RA, Casey MA: Focus Groups: a Practical Guide for Applied Research. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2009.
• [26]Brownson RC, Jackson-Thompson J, Wilkerson JC, Davis JR, Owens NW, Fisher EB: Demographic and socioeconomic differences in beliefs about the health effects of smoking. Am J Public Health 1992, 82:99-103.
• [27]Nagelhout GE, de Korte-de BD, Kunst AE, van der Meer RM, de Vries H, van Gelder BM, Willemsen MC: Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in smoking prevalence, consumption, initiation, and cessation between 2001 and 2008 in the Netherlands. Findings from a national population survey. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:303. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerström KO: The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence: a revision of the Fagerström Tolerance Questionnaire. Addiction 1991, 86:1119-1127.
• [29]Vink JM, Willemsen G, Beem AL, Boomsma DI: The Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence in a Dutch sample of daily smokers and ex-smokers. Addict Behav 2005, 30:575-579.
• [30]Hughes MA, Garrett DE: Intercoder reliability estimation approaches in marketing: a generalizability theory framework for quantitative data. J Mark Res 1990, 27:185-195.
• [31]Farley AC, Hajek P, Lycett D, Aveyard P: Interventions for preventing weight gain after smoking cessation. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2012., 1CD006219
• [32]Farrelly MC, Bray JW, Pechacek T, Woollery T: Response by adults to increases in cigarette prices by sociodemographic characteristics. South Econ J 2001, 68:156-165.
• [33]Vangeli E, West R: Sociodemographic differences in triggers to quit smoking: findings from a national survey. Tob Control 2008, 17:410-415.
• [34]Hammond D: Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control 2011, 20:327-337.
• [35]Van den Putte B, Yzer MC, Brunsting S: Social influences on smoking cessation: a comparison of the effect of six social influence variables. Prev Med (Baltim) 2005, 41:186-193.
• [36]Matt GE, Quintana PJE, Zakarian JM, Fortmann AL, Chatfield DA, Hoh E, Uribe AM, Hovell MF: When smokers move out and non-smokers move in: residential thirdhand smoke pollution and exposure. Tob Control 2011, 20:e1.
• [37]Matt GE, Fortmann AL, Quintana PJE, Zakarian JM, Romero RA, Chatfield DA, Hoh E, Hovell MF: Towards smoke-free rental cars: an evaluation of voluntary smoking restrictions in California. Tob Control 2013, 22:201-207.
• [38]Chapman S, Wong WL, Smith W: Self-exempting beliefs about smoking and health: differences between smokers and ex-smokers. Am J Public Health 1993, 83:215-219.
• [39]Paul CL, Ross S, Bryant J, Hill W, Bonevski B, Keevy N: The social context of smoking: a qualitative study comparing smokers of high versus low socioeconomic position. BMC Public Health 2010, 10:211. BioMed Central Full Text
• [40]Tversky A, Kahneman D: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211:453-458.
• [41]Toll B, Salovey P, O’Malley SS, Mazure CM, Latimer A, McKee S: Message framing for smoking cessation: the interaction of risk perceptions and gender. Nicotine Tob Res 2008, 10:195-200.
• [42]Polit DF, Beck CT: Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud 2010, 47:1451-1458.
• [43]Ip DT, Cohen JE, Bondy SJ, Chaiton MO, Selby P, Schwartz R, McDonald P, Garcia J, Ferrence R: Do components of current “hardcore smoker” definitions predict quitting behaviour? Addiction 2012, 107:334-440.
• [44]WHO: WHO Rapport on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2011 Warning About the Dangers of Tobacco. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2011; 2011.