RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Authors Year of
S.No. Research Paper Publicati Area Objective
Name on

1 Cigarette Smoking Kimberly M. 2012 Mid-Atlantic whether intermittent

Among College Caldeira, Kevin university,U.S smokers maintain their
Students: E. O’Grady, use over time or are
Longitudinal transitioning to daily use
Trajectories and or nonuse, and whether
Health Outcomes they experience more
adverse health outcomes
than nonsmokers.

Smoking and M Siahpush, R Australia to examine the

financial stress Borland, M relationship between
Scollo smoking and financial
stress.

To determine the
seven private prevalence of cigarette
Perceived Risk of public health smoking among college
Cigarette Smoking Raj Umesh, colleges in students and to assess
Among College Shyam P Kathmandu how they perceive
3 Students Lohani 2011 valley these risks
 To investigate the
impact of smoking on
The wealth effects the wealth of US young
4 of smoking J L Zagorsky 2004 US population baby boomers.

government and
Correlates of private colleges To assess the influence
cigarette smoking colleges of of factors that
among male Shafqut Rozi, Gadap, Bin encourage college
college students in Zahid A Butt, Qasim and Malir students to smoke
5 Karachi, Pakistan Saeed Akhtar 2007 in Karachi cigarettes.

This paper examines

global and UK evidence
The Economic on the economic
Impact of Smoking Victor U impact of smoking
and of Reducing prevalence and
Ekpu and Abra 2015 UK
Smoking evaluates the
Prevalence: Review ham K Brown effectiveness and cost
of Evidence effectiveness of
smoking cessation
measures
6

To evaluate the
effectiveness and cost
effectiveness of
workplace
Workplace interventions aimed at
interventions for Cahill and helping workers to quit
7 smoking cessation Lancaster 2014 UK smoking
 To conduct a cost–
benefit analysis (CBA)
An employer-based of varenicline versus
cost-benefit Jackson KC, bupropion from the
analysis of a novel 2nd, Nahoopii perspective of an
pharmacotherapy R, Said Q, employer over a 1-year
agent for smoking Dirani R, time frame, using
8 cessation. Brixner D 2007 USA clinical outcomes data

Cardiovascular To estimate the

health and cardiovascular health
economic effects of and economic effects
smoke-free Ong and of smoke-free
9 workplaces Glantz 2004 USA workplaces

To determine the
factors associated with
smoking level and
motives for smoking
Smoking frequency among current college
among current student smokers and
college student how these factors are
smokers: associated with
distinguishing Carla J. readiness to quit
characteristics and Berg,Pamela smoking across current
factors related to M. college student
readiness to quit Ling,Rashelle smokers smoking at
10 smoking B. Hayes 2011 various levels
 Limitations
limited sample size, geographic area, income n= 1253 ,age group : 17-19, 51.4% This study examined the
measure was based on participants’ were female and 73.1% were White trajectories of tobacco cigarette
neighborhood of residence immediately
prior to college, rather than actual family
income, Past-month smoking might not be
representative of smoking patterns
throughout the rest of the year
georgraphical area
1. This study was based on self reported
information so the accuracy can be affected
by different factors like characteristics of
respondents, motivation by research
assistant during data collection, class room
setting, and physical condition of
respondents.
2. The study does not cover all the public
health colleges of Kathmandu valley.
Therefore results cannot be generalized.
3. The four risk
perception questions were objective types
(about people) so it does not give subjective
information (Individual) regarding personal
risk of smoking.
Sample size
Sampling method
smoking, their predictors, and
health outcomes among students
(N = 1,253) assessed during their
first year of college (Y1) and
annually thereafter (Y2, Y3, and
Y4).
n = 6892 households Household Expenditure
Survey including twenty five
financial stress items
340 students b/w age 18 to 24-
Nearly 29% of respondents
were from 1st year, 38% second
year and 33% were third and
final year, Nearly 6 of 10 were
female students. The mean age
of the students was 20.7 years
(SD ±1.45). About 77% students
were from higher secondary
level (10+2 years- Biology
group) and the remaining was
from certificate level in health
science. Voluntary participation
1. the findings are for only one cohort of US
individuals. Individuals in other countries
and in other age ranges may have a very
different smoking–wealth relation.
2. while the
results infer a causal relation, this causality
can not be proven, given it is illegal to run a
controlled experiment that randomly assigns
individuals to a particular smoking status.
3. while the
regressions hold constant many important
factors, there is the possibility wealth and
smoking are both related to a missing
common set of factors, such as stress and
anxiety, which is actually driving the relation. n = 8908 Voluntary participation

1. As the study was based on self-reported

information on cigarette smoking, it is quite
likely that there is a chance of under-
reporting of smoking status among the
respondents and reported smoking status of
their relatives and friends.
2. The study also indicates that certain
towns are more likely to have students as
smokers as compared to other towns. This
finding needs to be further analyzed by 576 male college students of Multi Stage Cluster Sampling
future studies. ages ranging from 15–30 years Method

based upon various other research papers,

no new research was done
 Decision tree model,
sensitivity analyses

Monte Carlo simulation;

sensitivity analyses

Limited generalizability due to drawing the

sample from two colleges in the Midwest,
with participants being primarily female and
Caucasian.Second, the survey response rate
was 32.0%, which may seem low and might n=5500 students (aged 18–25
suggest responder bias.Another limitation to years)
generalization is that, among college
students, some individuals may be living in
unusually restrictive smoking environments
due to campus restrictions, which might
account for a high prevalence of non-daily
smoking.Did not assess the length of time 108-item online survey
participants had been engaging in their assessing a variety of health
current smoking pattern. topic areas
 Research
Instrument

PROC TRAJ
,personal interview
and self-administered
questionnaires ,

ABS,“financial stress
index”(3 measures)
ranging in values
from 0–14, financial
stress indicator

cross-sectional
study: questionnaire
and interview, chi-
square test, bi-
variate analysis,
logistic regression,
four-point Likert
scale
national survey -
NLSY79( National
Longitudinal Survey
of Youth ), linear
regression

cross-sectional
study:
Questionnaire based
interview

Meta analyses of
main workplace
interventions, using
the generic inverse
variance method to
generate odds ratios
and 95% confidence
intervals
Smoking status,
medication
compliance,
abstinence rates and
quit rates with
placebo, varenicle
and bupropion, net
benefits of changes
in cost savings to
employer for each
employee who had
quit smoking

Number of quitters
after smoke-free
workplace policy
within 1 year;
savings from
prevented
myocardial
infarctions; savings
from prevented
stroke; savings from
prevented
myocardial
infarctions in
previous passive
smokers

t-tests and analysis

of variance (ANOVA)
,Chi-squared tests
and ordinal
regression
 Conclusion

In Y1, 3.4% smoked daily and 4.1% exhibited signs of dependence (first cigarette within 30 min of
waking). Growth curve modeling identified five distinct smoking trajectories. After stable nonsmokers
(71.5%wt), the low-stable smoking trajectory was the most common (13.3%wt), outnumbering both low-
increasing (6.5%wt) and high-stable smokers (5.5%wt) by 2:1 and high-decreasing smokers (3.2%wt) by
4:1. The result is many college students smoke, but few smoke daily or are nicotine dependent.
Intermittent smoking patterns are often stable throughout college and are associated with adverse health
outcomes. Prevention strategies should be designed to mitigate the possible long-term health consequences
of light and intermittent smoking.

The odds of experiencing any financial stress were 1.5 times greater, and the odds of severe
financial stress were twice as large for smoking households than non-smoking households. The
effect of smoking on financial stress did not vary significantly across categories of income.
Among smoking households, higher percentage of total household expenditure on tobacco was
significantly related to financial stress.

Overall prevalence rate of ever smokers was 33%(68.5% were male) and about 16% were
current smokers. Non-smokers were about 3 times more likely than smokers to report that
smoking one to five cigarettes per day was harmful (aOR =2.60; 95% CI: 1.34-5.05). Similarly,
Non Smokers were 2 times more likely to believe the statement that people get addicted to
tobacco as to cocaine or heroin (aOR =2.27; 95%CI: 1.33-4.57). Nearly one fifth of smokers and
nonsmokers believed that smoking on a weekend or a couple of days a week was harmful, and
there was no significant difference between two groups (P>0.05).The study reveals the smoker
students were less aware of risks of cigarette smoking and its health consequences. Thus there
is a need to promote effective anti-smoking messages focusing effects of each cigarette they
smoke.
 Regression results show lower net worth is associated with smoking, after holding constant a
variety of demographic factors. Respondents who were ever heavy smokers are associated with
a reduction in net worth of over $8300 while light smokers are $2000 poorer compared to non-
smokers. Beyond this reduction, each adult year of smoking is associated with a decrease in net
worth of $410 or almost 4%.While a causal relation cannot be proven, smokers appear to pay
for tobacco expenditures out of income that is saved by non-smokers. Hence, reductions in
smoking will boost wealth, especially among the poor.

In this study, it was found that 26.7% of students had ever tried smoking, whereas 24% of
college students reported current smoking. Among different age groups, prevalence of current
smoking was 19.2% in 15–17 years, 26.5% in 18–20 years and 65% in 21 years and above.
Students in public schools were more likely to smoke as compared to students in private
schools. Students whose friends are smokers were 5 times more likely to smoke compared to
those whose friends are non-smokers. Students belonging to Bin Qasim and Gadap town were
more likely to smoke as compared to students residing in other towns.This study shows that
smoking is strongly associated with age, which may suggest social tolerance to smoking in this
setting and that social and educational variables appear to play a significant role in smoking
among college students.

the direct costs and externalities to society of smoking far outweigh any benefits that might be
accruable at least when considered from the perspective of socially desirable outcomes (ie, in
terms of a healthy population and a productive workforce). There are enormous differences in
the application and economic measurement of smoking cessation measures across various
types of interventions, methodologies, countries, economic settings, and health care systems,
and these may have affected the comparability of the results of the studies reviewed. However,
on the balance of probabilities, most of the cessation measures reviewed have not only proved
effective but also cost effective in delivering the much desired cost savings and net gains to
individuals and primary health care providers.

1.71, 95% CI 1.05–2.80; eight trials, 1309 participants).2. Individual counseling (OR 1.96, 95% CI
1.5–2.54; eight trials, 3516 participants).3. Pharmacotherapies (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.26–3.11; 5
trials, 1092 participants).
4. Multiple intervention programmes aimed mainly or solely at smoking cessation (OR 1.55,
95% CI 1.13–2.13; six trials, 5018 participants) all increased cessation rates in comparison to no
treatment or minimal intervention controls.
5. Self-help materials were less effective (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74–1.82; 6 trials, 1906 participants).
6. Two relapse prevention programs (484 participants) did not help to sustain long-term
abstinence.
1. Estimated 12-month employer cost savings per nonsmoking employee were $540.60 for
varenicline, $269.80 for bupropion SR generic, $150.80 for bupropion SR brand, and $81.80 for
placebo.
2. Varenicline was more cost beneficial than placebo, which had quit rates of 16.9% or less.
3. The quit rate with varenicline would have to be <16.9% to lose cost benefit over bupropion
SR generic.

1. The first year effect of making all workplaces smoke free would produce about 1.3 million
new quitters and prevent over 950 million cigarette packs from being smoked annually, worth
about US$2.3 billion in pretax sales to the tobacco industry.
2. In 1 year, making all workplaces smoke free would prevent about 1500 myocardial infarctions
and 350 strokes and result in nearly US$49 million in savings in direct medical costs.

Overall, 64.7% (n = 1736) were non-smokers, 22.1% (n = 593) were non-daily smokers and
13.2% (n = 353) were daily smokers. Among current smokers in this sample, 29.8% smoked 1–5
days, 9.6% smoked 6–10 days, 5.0% smoked 11–15 days, 6.4% smoked 16–20 days, 5.6%
smoked 26–29 days and 39.3% smoked every day of the past 30 days.Daily smokers were less
likely than more infrequent smokers to be social smokers and to smoke for social reasons;
however, daily smokers were more likely to smoke for self-confidence, boredom and affect
regulation. In addition, less frequent smoking was associated with greater readiness to quit
smoking in the next month than daily smokers
 Link

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3390552/

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/1/60

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230755927_Perceived_risk_of_cigarette_smoking_among_college_students
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/13/4/370

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-7-312

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl
es/PMC4502793/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2
4570145
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1
7426529

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1
5210386

https://academic.oup.com/her/article/27/1/141/623647/#10489047