2009
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntp100
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

College students' exposure to secondhand smoke

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
26
3

Year Published

2012
2012
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
3
26
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, our 8.8% current smokers level seem to contrast well with the 17.6% current smokers level recently reported across a sample of medical students in Saudi Arabia (Al-Kaabba et al, 2011), particularly that the Saudi study measured smoking status by whether the student had smoked on ≥ 1 day in the 30 days preceding the survey (Al-Kaabba et al, 2011). Our 3.2% daily smoking level was lower than USA levels, where 7% daily smokers were reported across 4275 students (10 universities) (Wolfson et al, 2009), specifically that this USA study's reference period was the past-30-day smoking status (compared to our 3 months reference period). Similarly, our 3.2% daily smoking, and 5.6% occasional smoking compared nicely with a study across three medical colleges in Pakistan (1529 students) where 5.7% were daily smokers and 11.7% were occasional smokers, particularly that their reference period was also the 30 days prior to their survey (Minhas & Rahman, 2009).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similarly, our 8.8% current smokers level seem to contrast well with the 17.6% current smokers level recently reported across a sample of medical students in Saudi Arabia (Al-Kaabba et al, 2011), particularly that the Saudi study measured smoking status by whether the student had smoked on ≥ 1 day in the 30 days preceding the survey (Al-Kaabba et al, 2011). Our 3.2% daily smoking level was lower than USA levels, where 7% daily smokers were reported across 4275 students (10 universities) (Wolfson et al, 2009), specifically that this USA study's reference period was the past-30-day smoking status (compared to our 3 months reference period). Similarly, our 3.2% daily smoking, and 5.6% occasional smoking compared nicely with a study across three medical colleges in Pakistan (1529 students) where 5.7% were daily smokers and 11.7% were occasional smokers, particularly that their reference period was also the 30 days prior to their survey (Minhas & Rahman, 2009).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 68%
“…In addition, although many college students smoke, little is known about the exposure this population to second hand smoke (Wolfson et al, 2009), where in e.g. Korea, 79.7% of a sample of college students reported that they were exposed to second hand smoke on campus on average 3 times per week (Kim & Choo, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There is little published research on college students' exposure to secondhand smoke (Wolfson et al, 2009), and the issue of potential biases in reports of exposure has not been explored. However, judging from our results, this may be a topic deserving further exploration, as evidenced by the differences in SHS exposure reported by nonsmokers and smokers.…”
Section: Key Findings and Interpretationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the 2013 National College Health Assessment, which allowed participating institutions to use either Web or paper modes, reported a mean response rate of 18% for those institutions using Web administration (American College Health Association, 2013). Other recent tobacco-related survey studies have reported response rates between 19% and 31%, including even some cases where a gift or raffle entry has been offered to encourage response (Berg et al, 2011;Burns et al, 2013;Garg et al, 2011;Primack et al, 2013;Reed et al, 2007;Wolfson et al, 2009). More generally, these results may be indicative of the larger trend toward reduced survey participation that has been described by survey researchers in recent years (Kim et al, 2011).…”
Section: Study Limitations and Strengthsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation