Tobacco Abuse and Associated Oral Lesions among Interstate Migrant Construction Workers

Abstract

Aim: The present study was conducted to assess the prevalence of tobacco use and associated oral mucosal lesions among construction workers of Cochin, Kerala, India. Materials and methods:A cross-sectional study was carried at various construction sites of Cochin and 2,163 workers were selected using multistage sampling method and were interviewed and examined. Information regarding demographic details, form, type, frequency of tobacco use, earlier attempt to quit, and willingness to quit tobacco use was obtained using predesigned questionnaire. The oral health status was recorded on the World Health Organization oral health assessment form 1997, and the examination was carried out under natural light using mouth mirrors and probe. Data thus collected were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 17 (Chicago, Illinois, USA) statistical software package. Chisquare test was applied.Results: Among the 2,163 workers, 1,952 were tobacco users and 211 were nonusers. Among the users, 1,021 use smokeless form, 372 use smoked form, and 559 use both. Premalignant lesions/conditions were more commonly seen with tobacco habit, with leukoplakia (14.75%) being the most common followed by oral submucous fibrosis in 201 (9.3%), candidiasis in 123 (5.7%), ulceration in 131 (6.05%), abscess in 59 (2.73%),

Social determinants in access to tobacco prevention and cessation support services among migrant construction workers in Urban Chennai, India

“…The high prevalence of current tobacco use (98%) among migrant construction site workers is twice than national averages 29.6% for SLT among adult men as reported in global adult tobacco survey-2 and similar to higher rates reported among migrants across India. [ 5 6 7 8 9 16 22 ] Smokeless tobacco use among migrants in this study (198, 58.6%) is higher than the prevalence of SLT and smoking in the states of Assam (41.7%/13.3%), Bihar (23.5%/5.1%), West Bengal (20.1%/16.7%), Orissa (42.9%/7%), and Jharkhand (35.4%/11.1%) and is of great concern from public health outcomes related to tobacco use such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. [ 2 ] This could be due to easy availability of a wide range of low-cost, regional SLT products across states, which have an established toxicity profile containing 69 major carcinogens listed in IARC.…”

“…A quarter (24.6%) of migrants have tried to quit tobacco usage in the past; however, 169 (49%) expressed that they are not ready to quit tobacco use comparable to migrants in Kerala (88.83% never tried quitting and 58.09% were not willing to quit tobacco). [ 6 ] Only 24.6% migrant construction site workers expressed an intention to quit in a year compared to 73% (56.5% smokers and 81% SLT users) in Delhi and 46% in Mysore. [ 42 43 ]…”

“…[ 2 ] Tobacco consumption among migrants is reportedly of silent epidemic proportions however remains a neglected area of focus in national tobacco prevention and control policies. [ 5 6 7 8 9 ] Greater Chennai Corporation including Kancheepuram, Chennai, and Tiruvallur districts is destination choice for 51.3% of the migrant population in the state. [ 10 ] Poor quality of life and unhygienic living conditions act as additional stressors to disrupted family and cultural support systems, thus amplifying the psycho-social stress of these migrants and contribute to high rates of tobacco use.…”

Evaluation of the effectiveness of a WHO-5A model based comprehensive tobacco control program among migrant workers in Guangdong, China: a pilot study

“…However, the high smoking rate was not a unique problem among Chinese internal migrants, but an international problem [10][11][12]. For instance, a larger scale study in Europe found that migrants were more likely to smoke than non-migrants [10].…”

“…For instance, a larger scale study in Europe found that migrants were more likely to smoke than non-migrants [10]. Another study revealed that the smoking rate in an Indian city was up to 90% among interstate migrant construction workers [11].…”