Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25124365›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2014

How immigrants adapt their smoking behaviour: comparative analysis among Turkish immigrants in Germany and the Netherlands.

Katharina Reiss, Odile Sauzet, Jürgen Breckenkamp, Jacob Spallek, Oliver Razum

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Smoking During Pregnancy Among Immigrant Women With Same-Origin and Swedish-Born Partners.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katharina ReissDepartment of Epidemiology & International Public Health, Bielefeld School of Public Health (BiSPH), Bielefeld University, P,O, Box 10 01 31, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany. katharina.reiss@uni-bielefeld.de.
Odile Sauzet
Jürgen Breckenkamp
Jacob Spallek
Oliver Razum

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking behaviour among immigrants is assumed to converge to that of the host country's majority population with increasing duration of stay. We compared smoking prevalence among Turkish immigrants residing in two different countries (Germany (DE)/the Netherlands (NL)) between and within countries by time spent in Turkey and DE/NL.

methodsThe German 2009 micro-census and the Dutch POLS database (national survey, 1997-2004) were analysed. An interaction variable with dichotomised length of stay (LOS) in Turkey (age: 0-17; 18+) and categorised LOS in the host country (immigration year: 1979 and earlier, 1980-1999, 2000-2009; the latter only for Germany) was generated. Age standardised smoking prevalences and sex-specific logistic regression models were calculated.

results6,517 Turkish participants were identified in Germany, 2,106 in the Netherlands. Age-standardised smoking prevalences were higher among Turkish immigrants in the Netherlands compared to those in Germany: 62.3% vs. 53.1% (men/lower education); 30.6% vs. 23.0% (women/lower education). A similar trend was observed for the majority population of both countries. The chance of being a smoker was lower among Turkish men with short LOS in Turkey and middle LOS in Germany/the Netherlands compared to those with short LOS in Turkey and long LOS in Germany/the Netherlands (NL: OR = 0.57[95% CI = 0.36-0.89]; DE: OR = 0.73[95% CI = 0.56-0.95]). Contrary to that, the chance of being a smoker was higher among Turkish men with long LOS in Turkey and middle LOS in Germany/the Netherlands compared to those with long LOS in Turkey and long LOS in Germany/the Netherlands (NL: OR = 1.35[95% CI = 0.79-2.33]; DE: OR = 1.44[95% CI = 1.03-2.02]). The effects for Turkish women were similar, but smaller and often non-significant.

conclusionTurkish immigrants adapt their smoking behaviour towards that of the Dutch/German majority population with increasing duration of stay. This was particularly obvious among those who left Turkey before the age of 18 years - a group that needs tailored interventions to prevent further increases in smoking. Those who left Turkey as adults and spent a short time in the host countries show 'imported' smoking patterns. A limitation of this study is the use of cross-sectional data: a cohort effect cannot be ruled out. Our findings have to be confirmed with longitudinal data.

Indexed as

Cultural CharacteristicsEmigrants and ImmigrantsAdolescentAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSmokingTurkey

Identifiers

PMID25124365
PMCPMC4150979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.