ArticlePreventive medicine reports2017
Social differences in who receives questions and advice about smoking habits when visiting primary care - Results from a population based study in Sweden in 2012.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individualized Treatment Effects of a Digital Smoking Cessation Intervention Among Individuals Looking Online for Help: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Trial
- Mediated effects of a randomised control trial for a text messaging smoking cessation intervention for online help-seekers and primary care visitors.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Article
- Impact of population tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and appraisal of future research directions.Tobacco control · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine whether there are social disparities in who receives questions and advice on smoking habits when visiting primary care and whether these disparities can be explained by differences in smoking habits. The study is based on 30,188 individuals aged 16-84 years who responded to a population survey questionnaire in 2012 in four counties in mid-Sweden (response rate 51%). Multivariate logistic regression models were used in statistical analyses. A total of 32% of those who visited a health care centre during the last three months reported that they were asked about their smoking habits during their latest visit, 6% received advice. In general, daily smokers received more often questions, and especially advice, than non-smokers. Persons with low education received more advice than persons with high education due to higher smoking prevalence. However, persons on disability pension and the unemployed were less frequently asked about their smoking habits than employees even though they smoke more. Women received less often questions and advice than men. Persons born outside the Nordic countries received advice twice as often as native Swedes regardless of whether they were daily smokers or not. In Sweden, those who are asked and, in particular, receive advice about changing their smoking habits while visiting primary care are mainly those who need it most. But the findings also imply that measures to reduce smoking should be intensified for women and are perhaps too intense for persons born outside the Nordic countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.