Heterogeneity among smokers and non-smokers in attitudes and behaviour regarding smoking and smoking restrictions
- Blake D Polanda,
- Joanna E Cohena,
- Mary J Ashleya,
- Ed Adlafb,
- Roberta Ferrencec,
- Linda L Pedersond,
- Shelley B Bulle,
- Dennis Raphaelf
- aDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, and Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, bCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, cOntario Tobacco Research Unit, Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto, and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, dDepartment of Community Health and Preventive Medicine, Moorehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, eOntario Tobacco Research Unit, Centre for Health Promotion, University of Toronto, and Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, fDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto
- Professor Blake Poland, Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, McMurrich Building, 12 Queen's Park Crescent West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A8, Canada;blake.poland{at}utoronto.ca
- Received 8 October 1999
- Revised 19 May 2000
- Accepted 1 June 2000
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine if smokers and non-smokers cluster into meaningful, discrete subgroups with distinguishable attitudes and behaviours regarding smoking and smoking restrictions.
DESIGN Qualitative research with 45 smokers guided development of questionnaire items applied in a population based telephone survey of 432 current smokers and 1332 non-smokers in Ontario, Canada.
METHODS Cluster analysis of questionnaire items used to categorise adult smokers and non-smokers; comparison of clusters on sociodemographic characteristics and composite knowledge and attitude scores.
RESULTS Smokers clustered in three groups. “Reluctant” smokers (16%) show more concern about other people discovering that they smoke, but parallel “easygoing” smokers (42%) in supporting restrictions on smoking and not smoking around others. “Adamant” smokers (42%) feel restrictions have gone too far, and are less likely to accommodate non-smokers. Significant gradients across categories in the expected direction were observed with respect to smoking status, stage of change, knowledge, and attitude scores, and predicted compliance with restrictions, validating the proposed typology. Non-smokers also clustered into three groups, of which the “adamant” non-smokers (45%) are the least favourably disposed to smoking. “Unempowered” non-smokers (34%) also oppose smoking, but tend not to act on it. “Laissez-faire” non-smokers (21%) are less opposed to smoking in both attitude and behaviour. A significant gradient across categories in the expected direction was observed with respect to composite scores regarding knowledge of the health effects of active and passive smoking and a composite score on support for restrictions on smoking in public places.
CONCLUSION Recognition and consideration of the types of smokers and non-smokers in the population and their distinguishing characteristics could inform the development of tobacco control policies and programmes and suggest strategies to assist implementation.
