You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Research letter
Hardcore smokers in a challenging tobacco control environment: the case of Missouri
  1. Amy Sorg1,2,
  2. James Xu1,
  3. Syamsundara Babu Doppalapudi1,
  4. Sarah Shelton2,
  5. Jenine K Harris2,3
  1. 1Saint Louis University School of Public Health, St Louis, Missouri, USA
  2. 2Center for Tobacco Policy Research, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA
  3. 3George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, USA
  1. Correspondence to Jenine K Harris, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, St Louis, MO 63130, USA; jharris{at}brownschool.wustl.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2010.039743

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Smoking rates in the USA declined from 42.4% in 1965 to 20.6% in 2008 but have remained essentially unchanged in recent years.1 2 This plateau has caused public health advocates to evaluate current programming and seek better understanding of smoking subpopulations.3 One subpopulation of interest is ‘hardcore’ smokers, who are more addicted, less open to cessation interventions and have been deemed a ‘small but intractable public health problem.’3

    Previous studies have examined the prevalence of hardcore smokers and compared them to other smokers,4–7 finding hardcore smokers comprise 5.2%–14% of US smokers.4 5 Part of the variability in prevalence estimates is likely due to definitional differences between studies.8 State-level hardcore …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. It has been changed from a Letter to a Research letter.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.