Study of smoking behavior in asbestos workers
✍ Scribed by Omowunmi Y.O. Osinubi; Aboaba A. Afilaka; John Doucette; Anne Golden; Theresa Soriano; Elisheva Rovner; Edward Anselm
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2001
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 119 KB
- Volume
- 41
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0271-3586
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
Background
Asbestos exposure and concomitant cigarette smoking markedly increase the risk of lung cancer and contribute to the prevalence and severity of pulmonary interstitial fibrosis.
Methods
A cross‐sectional survey of 214 asbestos workers was initiated to determine the prevalence of smoking and their readiness to quit smoking using the stage of change theory.
Results
The study was comprised of 61 never smokers (28.5%), 118 ex‐smokers (55.1%), and 35 current smokers (16.4%). Reasons for smoking cessation in ex‐smokers included perception of ill‐health (51%) and knowledge of smoking‐asbestos hazards (3.4%). Stage of change of current smokers revealed: precontemplation (26.5%), contemplation (35%), preparation (29%), and action (8.8%). Current smokers had the highest prevalence of small airway obstruction on spirometry.
Conclusions
A detailed smoking history during medical surveillance activities will enable the occupational physician to identify asbestos workers who have difficulty quitting and to develop a system in which such individuals can be referred to comprehensive smoking cessation programs. Am. J. Ind. Med. 41:62–69, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract ## Background In retrospective occupational studies, the degree of confounding by smoking depends on variation in smoking among job‐related exposure groups. We assessed the relationship between job title and smoking behavior as part of a study on occupational exposures and lung cancer.
Between 1935 and 1953, a series of publications appeared in England, Germany and America reporting cases of lung cancer amongst asbestos workers. As early as 1943, the German scienti®c consensus was that the evidence was strong enough to deem the association to be causal. On reviewing a more extensi