Abstract
The “hardening hypothesis” suggests that as smoking prevalence decreases, lighter smokers will quit first, leaving more “hardcore” smokers in the population. At a population level, however, the weight of evidence suggests that no hardening is occurring. By understanding the lessons from Geoffrey Rose's model of population-level risk factor change, we argue that the hardening of the smoking population is not inevitable. The Rose model predicts that the effect of policy interventions, and changes in social norms, can shift the population-level risk distribution for continuing to be a smoker, making it more likely that all smokers will quit. This analysis also suggests that further reductions in smoking prevalence will not come without further changes in the underlying – and largely cultural – root causes of smoking in a population.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008: The MPOWER package. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
Health Canada. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Report. Ottawa: Health Canada; 2008.
McKinlay JB . The new public health approach to improving physical activity and autonomy in older populations. In: Heikkinen E, Kuusinen J, Ruoppila I, and International Association of the Universities of the Third Age. International Congress, editors. Preparation for Aging. New York: Plenum Press; 1995.
Burns DM, Warner KE . Smokers who have not quit: is cessation more difficult and should we change our strategies? In: Marcus S, editors. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.
Giovino GA . The tobacco epidemic in the United States. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33:S318–S326.
Warner KE, Burns DM . Hardening and the hard-core smoker: concepts, evidence, and implications. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5:37–48.
Irvin JE, Hendricks PS, Brandon TH . The increasing recalcitrance of smokers in clinical trials II: Pharmacotherapy trials. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003;5:27–35.
Kozlowski LT, O'Connor RJ, Edwards BQ . Some practical points on harm reduction: what to tell your lawmaker and what to tell your brother about Swedish snus. Tob Control. 2003;12:372–373.
Breland AB, Acosta MC, Eissenberg T . Tobacco specific nitrosamines and potential reduced exposure products for smokers: a preliminary evaluation of advance. Tob Control. 2003;12:317–321.
McNeill A . Harm reduction. BMJ. 2004;328:885–887.
Shanks TG, Anderson CM . Changes in smoking habits in the American Cancer Society CPS I during 12 years of follow-up. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.
Celebucki CC, Brawarsky P . Hardening of the target: evidence from Massachusetts. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.
Gilpin EA, Pierce JP . Demographic differences in patterns in the incidence of smoking cessation: United States 1950–1990. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12:141–150.
Burns DM . The case against the hardening of the target. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.
Hyland A, Li Q, Bauer JE, Giovino GA, Steger C, Cummings KM . Predictors of cessation in a cohort of current and former smokers followed over 13 years. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6 (3):S363–S369.
Mendez D, Warner KE . Adult cigarette smoking prevalence: declining as expected (not as desired). Am J Public Health. 2004;94:251–252.
O'Connor RJ, Giovino GA, Kozlowski LT, Shiffman S, Hyland A, Bernert JT, et al. Changes in nicotine intake and cigarette use over time in two nationally representative cross-sectional samples of smokers. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164:750–759.
Fagerstrom KO, Kunze M, Schoberberger R, Breslau N, Hughes JR, Hurt RD, et al. Nicotine dependence versus smoking prevalence: comparisons among countries and categories of smokers. Tob Control. 1996;5:52–56.
Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J . Measuring the heaviness of smoking: using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Br J Addiction. 1989;84:791–799.
Gilpin EA, Lee L, Pierce JP . How have smoking risk factors changed with recent declines in California adolescent smoking? Addiction. 2005;100:117–125.
Hyland A, Cummings KM . Changes in measures of nicotine dependence using cross-sectional and longitudinal data from COMMIT. In: Marcus S, editor. Those Who Continue To Smoke: Is Achieving Abstinence Harder and Do We Need to Change Our Interventions. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 15. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2003.
Rose GA . The strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press; 1992.
Rose G . Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol. 1985;14:32–38.
Rose G . Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J of Epidemiol. 2001;30:427–432; discussion 433–434.
Gerdes LU, Bronnum-Hansen H, Madsen M, Borch-Johnsen K, Jorgensen T, Sjol A, et al. Trends in selected biological risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in the Danish MONICA population, 1982–1992. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:427–434.
Merlo J, Asplund K, Lynch J, Rastam L, Dobson A, World Health Organization, M. P. Population effects on individual systolic blood pressure: a multilevel analysis of the World Health Organization MONICA Project. Am J Epidemiol y. 2004;159:1168–1179.
Tolonen H, Mahonen M, Asplund K, Rastenyte D, Kuulasmaa K, Vanuzzo D, et al. Do trends in population levels of blood pressure and other cardiovascular risk factors explain trends in stroke event rates? Comparisons of 15 populations in 9 countries within the WHO MONICA Stroke Project. World Health Organization Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease. Stroke. 2002;33:2367–2375.
Tunstall-Pedoe H, Connaghan J, Woodward M, Tolonen H, Kuulasmaa K . Pattern of declining blood pressure across replicate population surveys of the WHO MONICA project, mid-1980s to mid-1990s, and the role of medication. BMJ. 2006;332:629–635.
Rose G, Day S . The population mean predicts the number of deviant individuals. BMJ. 1990;301:1031–1034.
McKinlay JB, Marceau LD . Upstream healthy public policy: lessons from the battle of tobacco. Int J Health Serv. 2000;30:49–69.
Marmot M . Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365:1099–1104.
Charlton BG . A critique of Geoffrey Rose's ‘population strategy’ for preventive medicine. J R Soc Med. 1995;88:607–610.
Diez-Roux AV . Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:216–222.
Thompson ME, Fong GT, Hammond D, Boudreau C, Driezen P, Hyland A, et al. Methods of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006;15 (3):iii12–iii18.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Challenging the “hardening hypothesis,” these Canadian authors note that Geoffrey Rose's model predicts that the effect of policy interventions, and changes in social norms, will shift the population-level risk distribution for continuing to smoke, making it more likely that all smokers will quit.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chaiton, M., Cohen, J. & Frank, J. Population Health and the Hardcore Smoker: Geoffrey Rose Revisited. J Public Health Pol 29, 307–318 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2008.14
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jphp.2008.14