Research Articles Base: Smoking

Effects of Smoking – A Case Study Analysis

table border=”0″ cellpadding=”0″ cellspacing=”0″ style=”border-collapse: collapse” bordercolor=”#111111″ width=”100%”> Introduction The tobacco industry all over the world has been a monolith in terms of scope and coverage with regards to its consumers. Moreover, tobacco consumption has been among the major causes of death among individuals in recent years. The prevalence of smoking has triggered an epidemic brought about by the open sale of cigarettes to the public. It is this habit that triggered the surge of deaths caused by pulmonary illnesses and other conditions that could be described as cancerous in nature. Illnesses like bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer are among the major consequences of prolonged smoking among people.   It is a continuing issue in society. The prevalence of smoking and the recognition and awareness of its effects on the health of individuals remains to be a hot topic for discussion. Moreover, there is similarly a growing concern that the advertising that tobacco industries create and shows to the public espouses the habit of smoking. Not only that, it is similarly possible that the tobacco industry’s advertising activities helps in espousing smoking to the younger part of the population. With most of their consumers dying at a young age, the tobacco industry anchors almost completely upon new smokers going into the market before they reach eighteen years old. These young individuals have to be persuaded and influenced to take up smoking. This is scarcely a static market where players in the industry contend with one another to a collection of long-existing consumers. Undeniably, if the tobacco industry was doubling in its magnitude due to the number of new entries into the group was two times those dying or have given up smoking, this would be labeled as a growth industry. As it takes place, in the struggle involving the parties contending to youth in opposition to smoking and the tobacco industry, the former are carrying out unpretentious inroads and, at any rate today, to some extent more smokers are giving up the habit or passing away than are taking on smoking. This assumption leads us to the intention to look into the basic tools that the tobacco industries employ to encourage smoking as a habit. Specifically, the study will be taking a hand in the study of youth smoking and its relationship with the advertising done by the tobacco industries. For clarity and coherence of the discussions, the paper is going to be divided into several parts. At the end of the said discussions, the author will then provide a summary and conclusion of the findings established in the study.     Effects of Smoking   Smoking is characterized as the act of inhaling tobacco fumes from a pipe, cigar, or cigarette. It has been performed by people for centuries, together with early North-American natives. (Covey and Seidman, 1999) Europeans had initiated it into the Old World by the earlier part of the 16th century. It was recurrently practiced ever since then all over the world, with tobacco corporations coming up and packed up cigarettes soon accessible. Smokers had no acquaintance of cigarette smoke’s adverse effects to their wellbeing until 1964, the time when the surgeon general of the US Public Health Service stated that smoking was dangerous to a person’s health. Smoking influences an individual’s health in a lot of ways, possessing both instant and long-standing effects. It is a severe compulsion, brought about by the drug nicotine that once breathed in nicotine contacts the brain almost instantaneously. Smoking is a dangerous practice, because it brings about addiction, illness, and high-risk pregnancy, and smokers are supposed to do everything to give up the habit.   A lot of smokers maintain that smoking alleviates them of stress and calms them down and soothes them, even as in recent years it has been established that the only thing smoking does is endangering an individual’s life. There are a lot of dangerous components in cigarette tobacco. A number of the said ingredients are toxic and addictive. (Covey and Seidman, 1999) Cigarette smoke generates thousands of chemicals that are perilous to a smoker’s physical condition. The dangers of smoking bring about a lot of deadly illnesses and are supposed to encourage smokers to give up the habit. First, a main cause why user of cigarettes is supposed to quit smoking is that a lot of smokers are acquiring cancer, which eventually leads to their demise. This illness kills people if it is not discovered on time. Another rationale why smokers are supposed to quit smoking is because of heart disease and its effects. (Covey and Seidman, 1999) For instance, a lot individual undergo from heart failure, but even supposing they are aware about smoking and its hazards, they do not discontinue their habit until they grow to be in poor health. Regrettably, in a lot of instances, smokers are vulnerable to live with heart complications for the remainder of their lives. Lastly, another vital cause for people to stop smoking is the danger of acquiring emphysema. This is similarly a fatal illness that affects lungs and entire respiratory system. These numerous reasons are supposed to demonstrate to the smokers that this practice places their health in jeopardy, and brings about a lot of diseases that bring about death.   Youth Smoking   This study attempts to establish that the use of tobacco products among the youth is predominantly based on the advertisements played by the tobacco companies. In the study of Beltramini and Bridge (2001) it claimed that the advertising activities of tobacco products are “casually related” to the inception of smoking. It even goes further by stating that tobacco advertising are related to the addiction of young people to smoking cigarettes based on their capacity to acknowledge extensively advertised brands that are directly targeting the youth themselves. Seeing this, this study argues that advertising could have a major role in the onset of smoking among these young individuals. However, there are other causes and factors that could similarly bring about the habit of cigarette smoking. It is similarly important to present several other perceived causes of smoking among the younger population. One of these includes the easy access to merchandise associated with tobacco, and even though fewer sellers vend tobacco to youngsters, youth still have easy access to these products (Johnston et al., 1999). Behavioral psychologists have created successful methods to control youth access to viable sources of cigarettes (Jason, Billows, Schnopp-Wyatt, & King, 1996). Even supposing commercial sources of cigarettes are controlled, it is likely for the young population to get hold of tobacco by means of social sources. Studies have revealed that youth who smoke cigarettes willingly offer cigarettes to their friends and acquaintances (Wolfson, Forster, Claxton, & Murray, 1997). Essentially, studies has recognized that a correlation involving the propensity of young people to smoke and the amount of their peers who do so reveals the range of the peer group by the youth under consideration and not “pressure” presented by the smoking friends or acquaintances. The individual teenager starts the development, surveying the assemblage of smoking friends, engrossed to them because of the reality that their use of tobacco products is a representation that has been popularized and glamorized by means of advertising. The causal course is the opposite of what is characteristically recommended by those who would put stock in the peer pressure impression In addition, family members, who are considered smokers, like older brother or a younger sister and even guardians, are another major resource of tobacco for youth (Robinson, Klesges, & Zbikowski, 1998). Similarly, youth have been established to come up to strangers who are smokers to ask cigarettes from them (Ribsl, Norman, Howard-Pitney, & Kim, 1999). For the reason that a large quantity of children acquires tobacco from social sources, attempts and other activities concentrated on getting rid of retail sources of tobacco may possibly be crucial yet lacking to lessen smoking of cigarettes among youth. Similarly, tobacco ownership prohibition may make it much more difficult for minors to acquire tobacco from their peers, as lesser minors may possibly be enthusiastic to endanger the possibly of being caught with tobacco products. Tobacco ownership prohibitions similarly make it simpler to decrease understated peer pressure when young people gather together at social events and openly smoke and persuade others to participate in this activity. As a result, it is likely that fining minors for ownership of tobacco products may possibly be an essential element in conjunction with enforcement of legislations to lessen merchant sales of cigarettes to minors so as to trim down teenage use (Jason, Pokorny, & Schoeny, 2003).   Advertising Tobacco   Undeniably, there are several billions of dollars annually of advertising and promotion (FTC, 2003) brings about a soaring level of acquaintance and awareness with tobacco brands on the side of the consuming public. An article in Business Week (2003) has anticipated that the equity such promotion has instituted for the Marlboro brand making it as the ninth most valuable brand in the global context. In addition, more or less as many 6-year-olds could recognize Joe Camel in his prime as could recognize Disney characters (Fischer et al., 1991). In the said period, the Joe Camel character presented a camel looking suave and cool by sporting a cigarette lodged in his mouth. The thing that is really bothering is the fact that the young population recognizes this character and is aware of what the said character is doing; enjoying the activities he is engaging in with a stick of Camel cigarette lighted.        Long-term studies have recognized a sequence where awareness with or even fondness for cigarette advertising does allow adolescents on engaging to smoking (Biener and Siegel, 2000). Similarly, the wider marketing literature has recognized that augmented fondness for the commercial ad is connected to augmented fondness for the brand and for the product category (Kelly, Slater, and Karan, 2002). This study acknowledged how successful image advertising for cigarettes and other sin products like beer boosts fondness for the whole product category and not merely the specific brand of cigarettes promoted and advertised. The sad thing is that advertisers’ intention on this aspect is not merely to entertain. Advertisers intend to acquire an extensive familiarity with the brands in order to develop and expand the market and to boost market share.   However, the direct advertisement of cigarettes is not the sole means of presenting and initiating smoking towards the younger generation. Movies and television shows similarly have been used as a medium of tobacco companies to present their merchandise. Paid placement of tobacco products in films has traditionally been an essential component of the tobacco industry’s marketing policies (Mekemson and Glantz, 2002). Throughout the 90s the frequency of smoking depicted in American films augmented sharply corresponding to the two preceding decades (Stockwell and Glantz, 1997). Throughout the most recent decade, one tobacco or any tobacco product was employed approximately in every three to five minutes in the films sampled as measured up with once in every ten to fifteen minutes in the 70s and 80s (Stockwell and Glantz, 1997). The amount of young adults smoking in films increased more than twofold (Hazan, Lipton, and Glantz, 1994). The depiction of cigarettes and smoking has usually been encouraging in nature (Stockwell and Glantz, 1997). However, a recent research that looked into the highest grossing PG-13 films before the 1998 settlement (1996, 1997) and the a couple of years following (1999, 2000) discovered that the standard number of time tobacco products were engaged on the screen augmented by 50% (Ng and Dakake, 2002).   A manner in which films can manipulate the smoking activities of youths is by the procedure identified as social modeling. This is the watching and emulation of attitudes of other individuals that they apparently admire or look up to (Bandura and Waiters, 1959). Therefore, for instance, adolescents whose preferred film stars smoke on or off the silver screen are more probable to have smoked than those whose favorite film celebrities do not smoke. Among adolescents who have by no means smoked, those whose much loved film celebrities do smoke are more vulnerable to start smoking proportionate to those whose favorite celebrities  do not smoke (Distefan, Gilpin, Sargent, and Pierce, 2004).   In addition, a study by Pechmann and Shih (1999) recognized the causal consequences of contact to the incidence of smoking in films on youths’ intention to smoke in addition to their insights of a smoker’s social standing. In one research, acquiring a film sated with cigarette smoking scenes, a professional editor was employed to generate a version of the motion picture without the scenes showing acts of smoking. Nonsmoking ninth graders were then exposed either the adaptation of the film with or without the smoking scenes. Those who watched the film with the smoking scenes were more expected to point out that they planned to smoke and more expected to look upon those who smoke as more intelligent, more successful, healthier, and sporty (Pechmann and Shih, 1999).   Another aspect that appears to have been associated with teenage smoking includes depression and the level of self esteem of the said population. The study of Cole, Hurford, Smith, and Vogel (2003) established that there are a considerable number of relationships involving depression and the smoking among teenagers. The said study employed the MDI to measure the level of depression of the respondents. According to the study, young individuals have a high propensity to smoke if have reveal high levels of “instrumental helplessness and social introversion.” These said aspects of depression are considered by the study as among the most alienating aspects of depression.  This means that young people that feel detached to society may well be on the express lane to the habit of smoking. Apparently, the said aspects of depression could reflect the person’s incapability of feeling a sense of connection with the people around him/her, including his/her family. This is compounded with the inability of the said person to get away from this state of depression.   The said study similarly claimed that the adolescents that have commenced in their smoking habits would be unconcerned with regards to seeking help for their depressed state. (Cole, Hurford, Smith, and Vogel, 2003) This could be damaging considering that their emotional state requires a lot of support to get them away from the said condition. The experiences that bring about a sense of inadequate assistance and understanding from other people probably leave adolescents feeling defenseless and secluded. The activity characterized by smoking as a way of acquiring social acceptance or to self-rehabilitate depressive sentiments among the adolescents.   In addition, several demographic variables were connected with adolescent smoking and depression as stated in the study of Cole, Hurford, Smith, and Vogel (2003). In their study, the respondents were more likely to smoke if their parents or guardians smoked or if they were grown-up. They were similarly more likely to articulate the intent to smoke potentially if their parents indeed used tobacco products, if they lived with a guardian, or if they were old enough. Possessing parents who used tobacco products was similarly connected with smoking for a considerable number of years. Higher depression marks were connected with lower marks and parents who used tobacco products. Parental smoking is tremendously powerful in shaping the probability of smoking in adolescents, while genetics may possibly have a say to this connection, modeling most possibly functions a great part in the association involving parental and adolescent smoking.   The said study shows that the family setting has a similarly great influence in the possibility of an individual to smoke. This is further backed up by the study of Borowsky, Ireland, and Scal (2003). They claimed that parent-family connectedness develops the possibility of the adolescents maturing free from smoking or any use of tobacco products. The sense of being close to, appreciated, loved and content with the relationship involving an adolescent and his or her parents is defensive and shielding with regards to the possibility of smoking in term of the gender and developmental stage among the respondents.   The said authors similarly employed the academic achievement as an indicator of smoking among the youth. Academic achievement was similarly strongly protective in opposition to transitioning to present smoking among all study groups. The study employed a self-reported grade point average to measure this variable. This means that a child who is doing well in school may well be free from any probability of smoking or using any other tobacco based products. This finding may reveal that education and awareness among the youth could present a great assistance with regards to providing information with reference to the dangerous consequences of smoking to one’s health.   Another protective factor that is present in the same study revealed that emotional well-being as a powerful variable among the respondents. The findings of the study revealed that the female respondents showed that this was a much greater protective factor to them as compared to the male respondents. This shows how females regard emotional elements as among the more important and more dependable wall to fall back on with regards to the temptation of smoking. The male respondents, on the other hand, could have established that they are more likely to be influenced into taking on the habit of smoking considering the appeal to their emotional well-being ranks less than other aspects, like being ”cool.”   The study of Borowsky et al. (2003) shows that even regardless of numerous risk factors for changing to smoking, specific elements can radically decrease and trim down the probability of growing to be a smoker. Even among the young individuals of society without recognized risk factors, the protective components additionally lessen the possibility for smoking. Smoking prevention schemes have conventionally embattled smoking-particular attitudes, beliefs and refusal skills. Browsky et al (2003) labeled these as proximal factors. Their investigation bears the impression that encouraging healthy adolescent maturity by improving components in opposition to smoking instigation, particularly in the areas of family and school setting, lessens the possibilities of becoming caught up in health risk attitudes like the use of tobacco products.   Use of Advertising to Discourage Smoking   When teenagers are asked why they smoke, the most commonly reported reasons were “curiosity, social norms, and offers/pressures, while for current smoking, the main reasons were pleasure/affect, addiction/habit, and desire.” (Dinh, 1992) In the said study, the order of the said reasons is based on the ranking on which the responses were given. Thus, it means that the top reason for teenagers to smoke was due to curiosity, followed by social norms. The problem with the study is that these are actual reason why kids start smoking. It did not establish why the respondents are currently smoking. However, given that curiosity turned out to the top reason, the advertising that the tobacco companies show all over the world to present and market their merchandise could still be among the factors that triggered that curiosity. Thus, the argument presented earlier in this study still holds.    Moreover, individual and social components, like curiosity, social norms, were regularly reported as causes for beginning use of tobacco, while physiological or affective grounds were more regularly accounted for current use of tobacco, such as pleasure/reduction of negative affect, and addiction/habit. (Dinh, 1992) Furthermore, a quantity of gender distinctions was established in the same study. As a cause for present smoking, more girls than boys indicated pleasure/affect, and for starting smoking, girls accounted both social norms and offers/pressure as grounds for starting to smoke more commonly than did the boy respondents. (Dinh, 1992) The grounds accounted for starting to smoke were connected with the persons’ succeeding smoking experience. Elements in the said study like social norms, desire, and pleasure/affect were accounted as grounds for starting to smoke tobacco products more often among continuers than non-continuers, and curiosity less regularly. These grounds for beginning tobacco utilization may possibly be construed as risk factors for consequently growing to be regular tobacco smokers. Moreover, the similar study presented among current smokers, the intensity of smoking was positively associated the stated employment of tobacco because of elements likes addiction/habit and pleasure/affect. Insights with regards to the capability to give up were negatively connected addiction/habit as a reason for utilization. Adolescents’ grounds for smoking change as a purpose of their smoking accounts. Students who had simply tried out tobacco (non-continuers) accounted more regularly curiosity and offers/pressure as grounds for commencing to use cigarettes than students who had experimented with tobacco and developed to weekly or more recurrent employment (continuers). Although curiosity and offers/pressure were frequent grounds indicated for the start of employing tobacco, they did not seem to be significant risk factors the moment regular use was taken on by adolescent smokers. In the study of Luna and Peracchio (1998), they looked at the attempts ti similarly use advertisement to provide information with regards to the harmful effects of smoking. The ad campaign concentrates on conveying the long-standing health consequences of smoking in a real manner by generating correspondences involving the consequences of smoking and things with which kids could relate to, like insecticide and vehicle exhaust. The intention of the said ad campaign is to offer both possible smokers and nonsmokers with germane and evocative representations and meaning with reference to the long-standing consequences of smoking tobacco products. With regards to the findings of the said study, it revealed a number of the attitudinal distinctions involving adolescent smokers and nonsmokers. The findings point out that adolescent smokers do not have tangible internal images of the unconstructive health consequences of smoking, but nonsmokers do appear to have such images. (Luna and Peracchio, 1998) If efforts to convey the lasting unconstructive and depressing health consequences of smoking are to sway possible prospective smokers, they have to represent those consequences in a manner to which young individuals could really associate.   Conclusion   Involvements pointed at adolescent smoking, in that case, is supposed to vigilantly appraise primary behavioral, normative, and control attitudes acquired by the target group and then advance with educational movements exclusively intended to considerably vary these convictions and the positions, standards, and apparent controls they generate. Specifically, instead of depending on customary methods anchoring on the negative effects of smoking, future studies is supposed to concentrate on how antismoking interventions might have an effect on individual outlooks with reference to one’s personal smoking, the manner in which one appraises the suggestions of significant others on the subject of one’s smoking, and one’s attitude with reference to the capability to control one’s smoking. This importance on positive reinforcement and developmental orientation gives confidence to customers to integrate longer-term and wider concerns of self-concept, family orientation, social concern, risk acquisition, and various added variables in appraising the efficiency of intervention schemes. Undeniably, attempting to resolve causality in preceding studies noted earlier, the viscous circle of growth, evaluation, execution, and amendment of antismoking educational involvements continues to become demanding.   References Bandura, A., And Walters, R. (1959) Adolescent Aggression. New York: Ronald Press. Beltramini, R. and Bridge, P. (2001) Relationship between Tobacco Advertising and Youth Smoking: Assessing the Effectiveness of a School-Based, Antismoking Intervention Program. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 35(2) Biener, L., And Siegel, M. (2000) “Tobacco Marketing and Adolescent Smoking: More Support for a Causal Inference.” American Journal of Public Health 3 (98): 407-11. Avialable at: www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/3/407. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Borowsky, I., and Ireland, M., (2003) Smoking among American Adolescents: A Risk and Protective Factor Analysis. Journal of Community Health. 28(2) Cole, A. Hurford, D., Smith, J. (2003) The Relationship between Depression and Smoking in Adolescents. Adolescence. 38 (149). Dinh, K. (1992) Adolescents’ reasons for smoking. Journal of School Health. Available at: www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:12983553/ Adolescents+reasons+for+smoking.html?refid=SEO.  . [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Distefan, J., Gilpin, E., And Pierce, J., (2004) “Do Favorite Movie Stars Influence Adolescent Smoking Initiation?” American Journal of Public Health. 94(7). Available at: smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/ pdf/Pierce-AJPH%20Movie%20Paper.pdf. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Fischer, PM., Schwartz, M., Richards, J., Goldstein, A., and RojasT., (1991) “Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years.” Journal of the American Medical Association 22 (266): 3145-48. Available at: dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.266.22.3145. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] FTC. (2003) Cigarette Report for 2001.” Federal Trade Commission. Available at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/ menu-tobac.htm. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Hazan, A., H. Lipton, And S. Glantz. (1994) “Popular Films Do Not Reflect Current Tobacco Use.” American Journal of Public Health 84(6): 998-1000. Available at: www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/6/998. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Jason, L. A., Billows, W., Schnopp-Wyatt, D., & King, C. (1996). Reducing the illegal sales of cigarettes to minors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 333-344. Available at: seab.envmed.rochester.edu/ jaba/articles/1996/jaba-29-03-0333.pdf. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Jason, L. A., Pokorny, S. B., & Schoeny, M. E. (2003). Evaluating the effects of enforcements and fines on Youth Smoking. Critical Public Health, 13, 33-45. Available at: www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ routledg/ccph/2003/00000013/00000001/art00003 [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., & Bachman, J. G. (1999). Cigarette Smoking among American teens continues gradual decline. Available at: www.umich.edu/~urecord/0405/Dec13_04/mtf_smoking.shtml. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Kelly, KJ., Slater, M., and Karan, D. (2002) “Image Advertisements’ Influence on Adolescents’ Perceptions of the Desirability of Beer and Cigarettes.” Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 2(21) 295-304. Available at: bear.cba.ufl.edu/centers/jppm/dmp/kelly.pdf. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Luna, D. and Peracchio, L. (1998) The Development of an Advertising Campaign to Discourage Smoking Initiation among Children and Youth. Journal of Advertising. 27(3) Mekemson, C., And Glantz. S.A. (2002) “How the Tobacco Industry Built Its Relationship with Hollywood.” Tobacco Control 11 (1): 81-91. Available at: www.sacbreathe.org/Tobacco/ tobacco%20control%20article-Curt.pdf. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] NG, C., and DAKAKE, B. (2002) “Tobacco at the Movies: Tobacco Use in PC-13 Films.” Available at: http://masspirg.org/reports/TobaccoattheMovies.pdf. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Pechmann, C. And Shih. C. (1999) ” Smoking Scenes in Movies and Antismoking Advertisements Before Movies: Effects on Youth.” Journal of Marketing. 3(63): 1-26. Available at: http://www.scenesmoking.org/research/pechshih.pdf. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Ribsl, K. M., Norman, G. J., Howard-Pitney, B., & Kim, K. A. (1999). Which adults do underage youth ask for cigarettes? American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1561-1564. Available at: www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/10/1561. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Robinson, L. A., Klesges, R. C., & Zbikowski, S. M. (1998). Gender and ethnic differences in young adolescents’ sources of cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 7, 353-359. Available at: tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/4/353. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] STOCKWELL, T., and GLANTZ. S. (1997) “Tobacco Use Increasing in Popular Films.” Tobacco Control 6 (1997): 282-84. Available in: tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/6/4/282. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006] Wolfson, M., Forster, J. L., Claxton, A. J., & Murray, D. M. (1997). Adolescent smokers’ provision of tobacco to other adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 649-651. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9146446&dopt=Abstract. [Acccessed 26 April, 2006]   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Effects of Smoking – A Case Study Analysis

table border=”0″ cellpadding=”0″ cellspacing=”0″ style=”border-collapse: collapse” bordercolor=”#111111″ width=”100%”> Introduction T...

In General Health is Interdisiplinary

Health               Health is multi-faceted. Its broad scope of coverage defines a specific segment of its diverse yet significant totality. However, its interconnectedness as one concept that implies wellness, vigor, and well-being will never be contested. In general, health is interdisciplinary. The definition of health varies to a given point of discussion and line of knowledge or interests. As Larson (1991) deemed, defining health in its best possible way is problematic. He reiterated that its definition is interdependent upon the “historical period of time and the culture in which it is defined” (1).             Generally, health, including other related terms like wellness, disease and illness, are terminologies that are often used without the thought of knowing their precise meaning. Several authors have given their own definition and understanding regarding these terms (1998; 1996). Conventionally, people define health as simple as the state of being free from diseases, when in reality diseases and health are not mere opposites ( 1996;  1988;  1981).             In the United States, a variety of policies were implemented by the federal government in support to the promotion and welfare of health of its people. Globally, health promotion seeks further reinforcement and gets more attention by the authorities. Today, people realize the more relative importance of health than before. Particularly, Americans expect their health to be not merely adequate, but good, if not excellent (Larson, 1991). (2000) believe that Americans are in “critical juncture” of promoting health considering the present living conditions. They presented developed methods in identifying the most effective strategies for improving the health-related quality of life.             Definition of Health             Literatures on health related publications present a wide array of definition for health. In McDowell and Newell (1987), definition of health in the U.S. had undergone changes as an effect of rising expectations. It evolved from “survival”, “freedom of disease”, the ability to perform daily tasks, sense of happiness and with the total inclusion of well-being. Basically, the simplest meaning of health could be seen in the dictionary as “overall condition of an organism at a given time”, “soundness (esp. of body or mind)”, “freedom from disease or abnormality”, and “condition of optimal well-being” (American Heritage Publishing Company, 2000). Most scholars agree that “health is a multidimensional concept which encompasses not only the absence of disease and disability but also the ability to carry out normal tasks and activities and to maintain an overall sense of well-being” (Hadley, 1982). The definitions accounted to authors, researchers, and medical experts such as Parson (1958),  (1967), Callahan (1973), (1977), (1981), Ware et al. (1981), (1983), and Daniels (1985) are accounted, honored and considered valid.  Further, with the different areas covered by health, Abanobi (1986) suggested five general approaches to defining health: (1) the medical model, (2) the holistic model, (3) the wellness model, (4) the environmental model, and (5) the eclectic model. The medical model is based upon the perspective of illness, disease, and proper functioning. The holistic model encompasses the whole person, including physical, mental, and social health. The wellness model is concerned with “better than normal” states, as well as subjective feelings of health. The environmental model describes optimal interaction with the environment, and the eclectic model includes the unusual definitions of health. Each of these definitions is important and directly affects how health is measured. The World Health Organization maintains its classical definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO, 1946). While there are a number of other definitions of health, it is probable that this definition has undergone much controversy and criticism. It has been commonly described as profound or meaningless; masterful and dysfunctional. It has also been defended as essential in its current formulation, and for some it is considered as in need of revision; in some other views, this definition has paved the way to lexicalization of most human existence as well as to abuses of the power of state in the name of health promotion (Salomon et al., 2003; Garcia, 2001; Seed house, 1995). Although this definition is subjected to some challenges, there are still scholars and researchers that agreed to such (Dubos, 1968;  1988; O’Donnell, 1989). In 2001, Lennart Nordenfelt disputed the Who’s definition. Noreen felt defined health by replacing the term optimal with the word complete and leaving out the terms social and well-being.             With the variety of anthologies about the definition of health, I strongly believe that health is wealth. It may sound as cliché but this idea remains practically applicable on this contemporary era. As to support Marmora’s idea that whatever the level of definition of health being employed, it is important to distinguish this from the question of the determinants of (that definition of) health (1989). The definition of health should be broad enough to encompass the dimensions that people – providers of care, policymakers, and particularly ordinary individuals – feel to be important (1994).             Then again, health must be handled and cared properly. Wellness promotion should permeate “through all the social, environmental, and other activities of populations” (Holland, 1997, p. 1645). Although the promotion of health is often identified with orchestrating a change in lifestyle, such individual modifications, it should be likewise “require some combination of educational, organizational, economic, and environmental interventions in support of change in both behavior and conditions of living” (Green et al., 1997, p. 125). It should start within each individual.   Reflection             Since health is the optimum condition of a person, it is vital to protect and preserve it. However, acquiring an absolute freedom to do things, people sometimes intentionally or even unintentionally make things that could possibly harm their well-being. As for my own self, I have current detrimental behaviors affecting my state of health. Among these are smoking, drinking liquor, lack of exercise and being a workaholic. For the record, I would like to pay particular attention in my habits of smoking and being workaholic. I find these two more detrimental than the two. Since I am a woman, it is not pleasant for me to smoke excessively. I am aware of the possible side effects and illnesses brought about by smoking. Some forms of cancer and other respiratory disorders are high at stake. By smoking, I might acquire such diseases that will eventually deteriorate my health status. I am also liable with the possible effects of my smoking habit among the people around me and the environment. Further, smoking is risky and it realistically destroys an excellent wellness. As for being a workaholic, I tend to forget my responsibilities of taking my own self. Because I am always preoccupied, busy and always on-the-go, I no longer pay attention to the calls, needs, and requirements of my health. This contributes to the destruction of my health. A 24/7 schedule at work causes stress that might initiate more hazardous and complicated sicknesses. Being a workaholic lessens my time to exercise, attend to my healthy lifestyle, and even to care for my entire being. With such reasons, I believe smoking and being a workaholic are potential pitfalls of my originally excellent well-being.             Possessing the knowledge and acceptance to those detrimental behaviors that I have towards health, I also develop and prioritize health-promoting behaviors to contradict and eventually give up those bad habits. Among these health-promoting activities that are involvement in church activities and functions and productive hobbies like reading, drawing, and knitting. Additionally, the fact that I have regular physicals and dental appointments and the absence of hospitalization is considered as health-promoting practices. I view them as health-promoting activities because they contribute to the total development of all the dimension of health namely physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually. In doing such, I divert my attention and make myself busy in more important things. Hence, I am avoiding the temptations of cigarettes, liquors, work and even indolence or doing nothing at all. These health-promoting practices enhance my well-being and at the same time guarantee my full exercise of potentials to become a useful and productive citizen.             Again, health is still the most treasured and sought-after wealth. What we do to our own selves is related to the condition of our health. Accordingly, we must protect and preserve our well-being. Besides, money and earthly desires cannot totally bring back the perfection of our body mechanism. In general, health among individuals should not only be based on physical wellness or in the absence of diseases, rather mental, social, intellectual and other determinants of health should also be considered.              Word Count: 1,442 (including in-text citations) Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

In General Health is Interdisiplinary

Health Health is multi-faceted. Its broad scope of coverage defines a specific segment of its diverse yet significant tot...

A Health Definition Essay Sample

Health               Health is multi-faceted. Its broad scope of coverage defines a specific segment of its diverse yet significant totality. However, its interconnectedness as one concept that implies wellness, vigor, and well-being will never be contested. In general, health is interdisciplinary. The definition of health varies to a given point of discussion and line of knowledge or interests. As Larson (1991) deemed, defining health in its best possible way is problematic. He reiterated that its definition is interdependent upon the “historical period of time and the culture in which it is defined” (1).             Generally, health, including other related terms like wellness, disease and illness, are terminologies that are often used without the thought of knowing their precise meaning. Several authors have given their own definition and understanding regarding these terms (Arnold & Breen, 1998; Downie, Tannahill & Tannahill, 1996). Conventionally, people define health as simple as the state of being free from diseases, when in reality diseases and health are not mere opposites (Downie, Tannahill and Tannahill, 1996; Wolinsky, 1988; Kass, 1981).             In the United States, a variety of policies were implemented by the federal government in support to the promotion and welfare of health of its people. Globally, health promotion seeks further reinforcement and gets more attention by the authorities. Today, people realize the more relative importance of health than before. Particularly, Americans expect their health to be not merely adequate, but good, if not excellent (Larson, 1991). Jamner and Stokols (2000) believe that Americans are in “critical juncture” of promoting health considering the present living conditions. They presented developed methods in identifying the most effective strategies for improving the health-related quality of life.             Definition of Health             Literatures on health related publications present a wide array of definition for health. In McDowell and Newell (1987), definition of health in the U.S. had undergone changes as an effect of rising expectations. It evolved from “survival”, “freedom of disease”, the ability to perform daily tasks, sense of happiness and with the total inclusion of well-being. Basically, the simplest meaning of health could be seen in the dictionary as “overall condition of an organism at a given time”, “soundness (esp. of body or mind)”, “freedom from disease or abnormality”, and “condition of optimal well-being” (American Heritage Publishing Company, 2000). Most scholars agree that “health is a multidimensional concept which encompasses not only the absence of disease and disability but also the ability to carry out normal tasks and activities and to maintain an overall sense of well-being” (Hadley, 1982). The definitions accounted to authors, researchers, and medical experts such as Parson (1958), Hoyman (1967), Callahan (1973), Boorse (1977), Kass (1981), Ware et al. (1981), Milio (1983), and Daniels (1985) are accounted, honored and considered valid.  Further, with the different areas covered by health, Abanobi (1986) suggested five general approaches to defining health: (1) the medical model, (2) the holistic model, (3) the wellness model, (4) the environmental model, and (5) the eclectic model. The medical model is based upon the perspective of illness, disease, and proper functioning. The holistic model encompasses the whole person, including physical, mental, and social health. The wellness model is concerned with “better than normal” states, as well as subjective feelings of health. The environmental model describes optimal interaction with the environment, and the eclectic model includes the unusual definitions of health. Each of these definitions is important and directly affects how health is measured. The World Health Organization maintains its classical definition of health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (WHO, 1946). While there are a number of other definitions of health, it is probable that this definition has undergone much controversy and criticism. It has been commonly described as profound or meaningless; masterful and dysfunctional. It has also been defended as essential in its current formulation, and for some it is considered as in need of revision; in some other views, this definition has paved the way to medicalization of most human existence as well as to abuses of the power of state in the name of health promotion (Salomon et al., 2003; Garcia, 2001; Seedhouse, 1995). Although this definition is subjected to some challenges, there are still scholars and researchers that agreed to such (Dubos, 1968; Bouchard, Shepard & Stephens, 1988; O’Donnell, 1989). In 2001, Lennart Nordenfelt disputed the WHO’s definition. Norden felt defined health by replacing the term optimal with the word complete and leaving out the terms social and well-being.             With the variety of anthologies about the definition of health, I strongly believe that health is wealth. It may sound as cliché but this idea remains practically applicable on this contemporary era. As to support Marmor’s idea that whatever the level of definition of health being employed, it is important to distinguish this from the question of the determinants of (that definition of) health (1989). The definition of health should be broad enough to encompass the dimensions that people – providers of care, policymakers, and particularly ordinary individuals – feel to be important (Barer, Evans & Marmor, 1994).             Then again, health must be handled and cared properly. Wellness promotion should permeate “through all the social, environmental, and other activities of populations” (Holland, 1997, p. 1645). Although the promotion of health is often identified with orchestrating a change in lifestyle, such individual modifications, it should be likewise “require some combination of educational, organizational, economic, and environmental interventions in support of change in both behavior and conditions of living” (Green et al., 1997, p. 125). It should start within each individual.   Reflection             Since health is the optimum condition of a person, it is vital to protect and preserve it. However, acquiring an absolute freedom to do things, people sometimes intentionally or even unintentionally make things that could possibly harm their well-being. As for my own self, I have current detrimental behaviors affecting my state of health. Among these are smoking, drinking liquor, lack of exercise and being a workaholic. For the record, I would like to pay particular attention in my habits of smoking and being workaholic. I find these two more detrimental than the two. Since I am a woman, it is not pleasant for me to smoke excessively. I am aware of the possible side effects and illnesses brought about by smoking. Some forms of cancer and other respiratory disorders are high at stake. By smoking, I might acquire such diseases that will eventually deteriorate my health status. I am also liable with the possible effects of my smoking habit among the people around me and the environment. Further, smoking is risky and it realistically destroys an excellent wellness. As for being a workaholic, I tend to forget my responsibilities of taking my own self. Because I am always preoccupied, busy and always on-the-go, I no longer pay attention to the calls, needs, and requirements of my health. This contributes to the destruction of my health. A 24/7 schedule at work causes stress that might initiate more hazardous and complicated sicknesses. Being a workaholic lessens my time to exercise, attend to my healthy lifestyle, and even to care for my entire being. With such reasons, I believe smoking and being a workaholic are potential pitfalls of my originally excellent well-being.             Possessing the knowledge and acceptance to those detrimental behaviors that I have towards health, I also develop and prioritize health-promoting behaviors to contradict and eventually give up those bad habits. Among these health-promoting activities that are involvement in church activities and functions and productive hobbies like reading, drawing, and knitting. Additionally, the fact that I have regular physicals and dental appointments and the absence of hospitalization is considered as health-promoting practices. I view them as health-promoting activities because they contribute to the total development of all the dimension of health namely physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually. In doing such, I divert my attention and make myself busy in more important things. Hence, I am avoiding the temptations of cigarettes, liquors, work and even indolence or doing nothing at all. These health-promoting practices enhance my well-being and at the same time guarantee my full exercise of potentials to become a useful and productive citizen.             Again, health is still the most treasured and sought-after wealth. What we do to our own selves is related to the condition of our health. Accordingly, we must protect and preserve our well-being. Besides, money and earthly desires cannot totally bring back the perfection of our body mechanism. In general, health among individuals should not only be based on physical wellness or in the absence of diseases, rather mental, social, intellectual and other determinants of health should also be considered.              Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

A Health Definition Essay Sample

Health Health is multi-faceted. Its broad scope of coverage defines a specific segment of its diverse yet significant tot...

Research Paper Factors that affects a persons tendency of smoking and non smoking

Table of Contents   Introduction Methodology Findings and Discussions Ø      Factors that affect’s a person’s tendency of smoking in nonsmoking   areas Ø      Percentage of persons smoking in no-smoking areas in parks and       playgrounds of CLAD (including the ratio of male : female) Conclusion Ø      Summary Ø      Limitation Ø      Recommendation Appendix             Bibliography             Questionnaire             Logs             Introduction             Smoking continues to be a problem among many individuals worldwide. An attempt to decrease availability to those less than 18 years of age resulted in a law that requires proof of age to purchase cigarettes. Cigarette smoking by women is also a growing health concern. However, enforcement is far from being met. In many public places, smoking is allowed and even minor aged individuals can smoke. The decision to smoke may be reflective of self-concept issues and may be culturally influenced. Awareness of risk factors is essential for implementation of preventive health care in a variety of health care settings.             A ban on smoking was put down in Hong Kong, only leaving a few designated areas for smoking. However, many observed that people still smoke in non-smoking areas. In this project, we would concentrate on: (1)                     The factors that push people to smoke in non-smoking areas and not in the designated smoking areas. (2)                     To be able to determine the percentage of smokers smoking at no-smoking areas in parks and playgrounds of CLAD (including the ratio of male : female) We hope that through this research, we may be able to shed light on the matter of people smoking in non-smoking areas and the reasons behind their adamant response to smoking ban.     Methodology             For this research study, the author will employ a combination of qualitative method and quantitative methods. This was so because our study needed an in-depth look at why smokers continue to smoke in non-designated areas despite the smoking ban. Also, we needed to use the quantitative method because the one of objectives of the study is to find out if the percentage of smokers in the non-smoking area and the smokers in designated areas, furthermore, we also need to determine the ratio between female and male smokers.             At a designated hour, the number of smokers in designated and non-designated areas will be counted. An informal semi-structured interview with focus group smokers in non-smoking areas will be conducted. Three public parks and playgrounds in Hong Kong under management of the CLAD, with designated smoking areas will be used as the main surveillance area for the research.          Findings and Discussions                                                               Smoking Cessation Programs             Success in response to public health education is more likely in professional and managerial persons and in those best able to intelligently appreciate the risks associated with smoking. Unfortunately, most smokers do not usually stop smoking until the onset of ill health. Withdrawal effects, possibly related to nicotine deprivation, include depression, anxiety, irritability, insomnia, and weight gain. Hypnosis, aversion therapy, group therapy, and special smoking withdrawal clinics have helped individuals break their smoking habit, but the overall value of these aids is uncertain. Persons unable to stop cigarette smoking should be encouraged to change to a less dangerous method of smoking such as using pipes or cigars, or filter-tipped cigarettes with a low tar and nicotine content. The risk may be also reduced by smoking fewer cigarettes, inhaling less, leaving a longer stub, and taking fewer puffs/cigarettes (Pimple, 2005).             Motivated by health concerns, spurred on by social pressure, and aided by efficacious treatments, many smokers have managed to stop smoking. For a certain group of smokers, however, this outcome has been short-lived, as within months, weeks, or even days for some, a relapse to smoking occurs. Indeed, it has been documented that 1 year after a quit attempt, about 90% of would-be ex-smokers will have gone back to smoking (1999, p.175). Various organizations have put up campaigns against smoking. Yet not all of them do work. Governments alone cannot set up a successful campaign against smoking. Thus we see many private organizations that also help in campaigns against smoking.             Susan’s case is just one of the many cases about individuals who wish to stop smoking yet aren’t able to. Their need to smoke may be attributed to factors related to the self. Susan will probably need professional help regarding her smoking problem and an understanding of self is needed for a successful treatment.   Psychotherapeutic Approach             Because women’s lives are more punctuated, sociobiologically speaking, than are men’s — by menarche and menopause, by the monthly cycle of ovulation and bleeding, by pregnancy and childbirth, and by the accompanying assaults of these life changes on body image — looking at women as a block may blur differences in women’s smoking cessation needs across the life cycle. The special needs of women at different life stages will require much more attention if smoking cessation programs are to be maximally helpful to women smokers. Nevertheless, sufficient research has been done in a few aspects of the female life cycle to offer at least some guidance to the clinician (1999, p.74).             In Susan’s case, she would need a psychotherapeutic approach to her smoking problem. A psychotherapeutic approach for smoking cessation uses cognitive, supportive, and expressive therapeutic techniques that are generally delivered in an active, directive therapeutic style (1999, p.182). This approach will focus in an individual’s self-concept and views regarding smoking. Why people smoke and smokers’ views about smoking are issues that have attracted much attention within the last few years. Some researchers have focused on the role of peers and of parents. Other researchers have asked smokers to attribute their smoking to different reasons–for example, pleasure, relaxation, or weight control. These researchers have often been guided by attribution theory and, specifically, by the fundamental attribution error. When this theory has been applied to smokers, researchers have predicted that smokers would attribute their own smoking to external causes (e.g., peers, advertisements, pleasure), whereas nonsmokers would attribute people’s smoking to internal causes (Jenks, 1994). The therapy is change oriented, sequenced, and time limited.             The organizing principle of this therapeutic approach is the assumption that cigarette smoking is maintained by the (emotionally dependent) patient’s tendency to use cigarettes in the service of denying painful feelings. The consequence of this self-medicating tendency, which is sustained by the psychoactive nature of nicotine, is a learned and practiced inability to recognize feelings and to respond adaptively to the stressful, emotionally arousing events, large or small, of everyday life. The emotionally dependent smoker will often be emotionally unaware, constricted in emotional experience, and lacking in appropriate coping mechanisms (1999, p.180). The protection motivation theory also supports the psychotherapeutic approach to the problem of smoking. Protection motivation theory states that health information (e.g., cigarette health warnings) elicits both appraisal of the threat and appraisal of coping techniques; both cognitive processes involve (a) either maladaptive or adaptive responses and (b) variables that increase or decrease the probability of those responses. People use the threat-appraisal process to evaluate the variables associated with the potentially harmful (maladaptive) response. Intrinsic rewards and extrinsic rewards increase the probability of the maladaptive response; severity of and personal vulnerability to the danger decrease the probability of the maladaptive response. By using the coping-appraisal process, a person evaluates his or her ability to cope with and avert the threat (adaptive response). The efficacy of the response and one’s ability to perform it increase the likelihood of the adaptive response, whereas response costs decrease the probability of the adaptive response (Ho, 1998). In the case of smoking, the likelihood of smoking is decreased by (a) belief in the severity of the diseases caused by smoking, (b) belief in one’s vulnerability to those diseases, (c) belief that smoking cessation is an effective way to avoid the diseases, and (d) belief that one can successfully stop smoking. On the other hand, the likelihood of cigarette smoking is increased by intrinsic rewards (e.g., physical satisfaction), extrinsic rewards (e.g., peer approval), and the costs of an adaptive response (e.g., enduring withdrawal symptoms). This would mean that aside from smoking being affected by emotions, it is also affected by cognition. According to this model, the increased likelihood of an adaptive response (not smoking) depends primarily on four cognitive perceptions. Severity, personal vulnerability, self-efficacy, and response efficacy enhance the persuasive effects of health warnings by eliciting protection motivation, an intervening variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity for self-protection. Strong beliefs about these four variables arouse protection motivation; consequently, individuals are more likely to change their attitudes and subsequently to adopt the health behavior which is smoking cessation in this case (Ho, 1998).             A key concept underlying this psychotherapeutic approach for the hardcore smoker dependent on emotion and cognition is the notion that it is not negative affect itself but rather the inability to cope with negative affect that presents an impediment to sustained abstinence. This explanatory model is rooted in the emotionally dependent smoker’s history of conveniently using cigarette smoking as a “psychological tool” with which to self-medicate painful feelings. Although the long-term benefit of using smoking to cope with negative feelings is questionable, the pharmacology of nicotine, a drug with multiple psychoactive effects, and the pharmacokinetics of smoked nicotine do make it plausible that feelings of anxiety, depression, or anger are attenuated at the time the cigarette is smoked. Although short-lived, this blaming quality of smoking behavior is reinforcing, leading to its repetition whenever such negative affects are experienced, and ultimately to a state of emotional dependence on smoking. It is possible that this process begins early in the person’s smoking career, as suggested by the evidence that the relationship between being a regular smoker and depression starts as early as during the adolescent years (1999, p.181).             Following this line of thinking, the therapeutic challenge presented by the emotionally dependent smoker can be conceptualized on multiple levels. The presenting complaint is persistent, compulsive smoking, with an inability to sustain abstinence. With a high level of motivation, a pharmacological agent, and behavioral counseling, Susan may actually be able to stop on a given quit day.             Just as in the case of Susan, most smokers seemed torn: On the one hand, they saw smoking as extremely bad and were harsher about themselves than they were about others; on the other hand, they believed they could not change their smoking behavior because they perceived themselves as psychologically addicted. To change their habit, they would need to participate in programs that present adequate alternatives for relaxation and address psychological addiction (Jenks, 1994).             Promoting a positive self-concept in older adults like Susan is therefore essential, but it is especially important for those experiencing disability or frailty. Conducting a life review or participating in a reminiscence group, recording an oral history, or arranging a photo scrapbook of meaningful life events are examples of activities that can be suggested to Susan to help her feel a sense of self-worth about the life lived, as well as help take her mind off cigarette smoking (Eliopoulos, 2001).             Potential threats to the self-esteem of older adults such as Susan may arise from the institutional environments where they receive their care. These threats can include dependence, devaluation, depersonalization, functional impairments, and lack of control over one’s environment. These threats could create stress in the individual and thus they resort to smoking as release and due to these factors have a hard time quitting smoking even if they desperately want to. Susan’s difficulty in stopping smoking is somehow related to her self-concept. Self-concept may be negatively affected in older adults secondary to a number of life changes, including health problems, declining socioeconomic status, spousal loss or bereavement, loss of social support, and decline in achievement experiences (2001, p.235).   Conclusion             There is a counseling approach for emotion and cognition dependent smokers, broadly defined as that subset of smokers whose inability to stop smoking is determined by emotional and cognitive factors. Despite Susan’s strong wish to stop smoking and multiple attempts to do so, her efforts are stymied by the emergence of distressful and painful feelings that they attempt to alleviate through smoking cigarettes. Severity, personal vulnerability, self-efficacy, and response efficacy enhance the persuasive effects of health warnings about smoking cessation by eliciting protection motivation, an intervening variable that arouses, sustains, and directs activity for self-protection within the individual. Strong beliefs about these variables can arouse protection motivation; consequently, Susan will be more likely to change her attitudes and subsequently to stop smoking.                   Appendix   Questionnaires   1.) How old are you? (Please tick)   17-23 24-34 35-45 46-59 over 60               3) Please state your gender. (Please tick)  Male                        Female   4) What do they feel about the smoking ban now implemented in Hong Kong? (Please tick) Agree 1 Agree on some aspects 2 Undecided 3 Disagree on some aspects 4 Disagree 5               5) Please state the reason why you agree? (Please tick)   6)iately? (Please tick) NO 1 2 Sometimes 3 4 YES 5               7) How frequently do you smoke? (Please tick)   not at all 1 Once every other day 2 Once a day 3 5 times a day 4 regularly 5   Smoke               8.) Where do you often smoke?   Non-smoking areas 1 Designated smoking areas 2         Please state the reason for your answer: _______________________________ _________________________________________________________________     Interview Questions     1.      How often do you smoke? 2.      What are your reasons for smoking? 3.      Do you think that the smoking ban would actually lessen the smokers in Hong Kong? 4.      Why do smoke in a non-smoking area? 5.      What alternatives would you suggest for the implementation of the smoking     Field Logs on 22 February 2007 Duration:          1800 – 2400 hours Location:          (Please state the name of the designated park)   Time Event 1800 Arrived the vicinity of ‘name of the park’ 1830 – 1845 The first questionnaire was administered to a man in no-smoking area. 1850 – 1902 The 2nd questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 1906 – 1922 The 3rd questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 1926 – 1939 The 4th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 1945 -1956 The 5th questionnaire was conducted. (non-smoking area) 2000 -2028 The 6th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2036 -2052 The 7th questionnaire was conducted. (non-smoking area) 2059 – 2116 The 8th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2133 – 2148 The 9th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2154 -2206 The 10th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2210 – 2229 The 11th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2245 – 2257 The 12th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2311 – 2324 The 13th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2326 – 2346 The 14th questionnaire was conducted. (non-smoking area) 2347 – 2403 The 15th questionnaire was conducted. (non-smoking area) 2405 Left ‘name of the designated park’.               On the first designated night in conducting my field research, I chose (please insert the name of the designated park) to conduct my survey. In the course of my 6 hour operation, I have succeeded only in asking 15 smokers to answer my questionnaire and only a further 3 for the interview. But as I counted the smokers in the course of the 6 hours that I spent there, the total number of smokers totaled to about 165; 39 people smoking in the non-smoking area and about 126 in the smoking area. About 93 people were male and the remaining 72 were female. Though the above summary does not display the gender of the respondents, most of the respondents were male, only 4 were female.             As I was able to observe, female smokers often came in cliques, comprising of mostly female, sometimes with a few male companions. On the other hand, male smokers either came alone or in a pair, mostly a male companion. The result of the survey in my survey sheet as of the moment can be deemed indecisive, for only four respondents came from the non-smoking area, where as in actuality, there were around 22 people smoking in the non-smoking area in the course of the 6 hour operation, 6 of them female.  This is due to the fact that many of the smokers form the non-smoking area refused to answer the questionnaire or be interviewed, for fear of being caught by officers and be condemned with the use of that information. In actuality, many of them put out their cigarette and left the area when I approached them about the survey.              The area I chose seems to be quite popular with smokers since it is quite near to offices and bus stops. Though it is too early to conclude, I believe that this may be one of the factors why many people come here to smoke.   Interview Analysis             For the interview, only 2 people were willing to give out their opinions on the matter of smoking. Almost all the answers from the two were unanimous, except for question one. The two people were interviewed with an interval of 4 hours and 30 minutes. The first smoker, who was interviewed at around 7:56 PM, stated that he smoked around 5 times a day. According to him, he smokes because he has a tendency to binge what he eats, so in order to stop that from happening, he lights a cigarette to stop the feeling of nausea after eating. For interviewee no. 2, who was interviewed at around 11:46 PM, stated that he smokes around 2 to 3 times a day, depending on his mood. He smokes mainly because he likes the feel of the cigarette in his mouth. For interviewee no. 1, the ban in Hong Kong is practically useless, since many people still smoke, and the areas designated for smoking does not contain the smoke coming from their cigarettes; for interviewee no. 2, the ban should be on the cigarettes, not the people who smoke. For both interviewee no. 1 and 2, they smoke in the non-smoking area simply because the smoking area is too crowded. According to interviewee no. 2, he likes to smoke alone, that’s why even if it’s a restricted area, he chooses to go there instead of the crowded smoking area. Both interviewees suggested that the government lift the ban on smoking. According to them, smoking can only be stopped if the smoker decides to stop, so even if there is a constant ban on smoking, smokers would continue to smoke and break the ban.             Though the first survey results does not give me hard evidence and answers, mere observation gives me a feel of why people smoke at non-designated areas.                                                 Field Logs on 22 March 2007   Duration:          1800 – 2400 hours Location:          (please state the name of the park)   Time Event 1802 Arrived at the vicinity of ‘name of the park’. 1815 – 1822 The 1st questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 1826 – 1839 The 2nd questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 1845 The 3rd. to the 6th questionnaires were handed out and completed.  (smoking area) ~ ~ (smoking area) ~ ~ (smoking area) ~ ~ (smoking area) ~ ~ (smoking area) 1903 The 3rd. to the 6th questionnaires were handed out and completed. (smoking area) 1909 – 1926 The 7th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 1949 – 2003 The 8th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2004 – 2023 The 9th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2026 – 2044 The 10th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2048 – 2059 The 11th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2100 – 2116 The 12th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2120 – 2138 The 13th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2140 – 2200 The 14th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2210 – 2231 The 15th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2249 – 2306 The 16th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2310 – 2327 The 17th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2329 – 2341 The 19th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2345 – 2401 The 20th questionnaire was conducted. (smoking area) 2405 Left the designated area.                           At my second night of operations, I chose a park that is quite secluded and relatively far from any office establishment in order for me to determine if people would really come to such a place just to be able to smoke. The park is relatively 2 blocks from any office establishment. Out of about 123 smokers that I was able to note during my 6 hour survey, only 20 people were willing to answer the questionnaire, 5 were female, and all of whom were smoking in the designated area. As is reflected in the results, all complied with the ban, no one smoked in the non-smoking area. One may conclude that the reason why no one is smoking in the non-smoking area is because the park is quite far from any establishments. And probably, all those who came there during my survey were willing to follow the rules.             Since none of them were smoking in the non-smoking area, I decided not to conduct any interviews.             But it is also interesting to note that after I had conducted my interviews, I decided to see the nearest establishments for any smokers there. Just as I had speculated, many were smoking at the closest establishments; on backstreets, on dark alleys and corners.                             Field Log on 22 April 2007 Duration:          1800 – 2400 hours Location:          Please fill in with the designated area   Time Event 1800 Please fill in the name designated area. 1810 – 1825 The 1st and 2nd questionnaires were given and completed. 1830 – 1845 The 3rd and 4th questionnaires were given and completed. 1850 – 1905 The 5th and the 6th questionnaires were given and completed. 1910 – 1925 The 7th and the 8th questionnaires were given and completed. 1930 – 1945 The 9th and the 10th questionnaires were given and completed. 1950 – 2005 The 11th and the 12th questionnaires were given and completed. 2010 – 2025 The 13th and the 14th questionnaires were given and completed. 2030 – 2045 The 15th and the 16th questionnaires were given and completed. 2050 – 2105 The 17th and the 18th questionnaires were given and completed. 2110 – 2125 The 19th and the 20th questionnaires were given and completed. 2130 – 2145 The 21st and the 22nd questionnaires were given and completed. 2150 – 2205 The 23rd and the 24th questionnaires were given and completed. 2210 – 2225 The 25th and the 26th questionnaires were given and completed. 2230 – 2245 The 27th and the 28th questionnaires were given and completed. 2250 – 2305 The 29th and the 30th questionnaires were given and completed. 2310 – 2325 The 31st and the 32nd questionnaires were given and completed. 2330 – 2345 The 33rd and 34th questionnaires were given and completed. 2350 – 2405 The 35th and the 36th questionnaires were given and completed. 2410 Left the venue.               This is my third and final survey night at the designated parks. In order to gain more respondents, I decided to change my strategy and my time table. I gave out to questionnaires to every 15 minutes and with 5 minute intervals. Therefore, in my 6 hour operation, I was able to have 36 respondents. I made sure that I would be able to interview a number of respondents from the non-smoking area, so about 23 of these respondents are smokers from non-smoking areas. Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Research Paper Factors that affects a persons tendency of smoking and non smoking

Table of Contents Introduction Methodology Findings and Discussions Ø Factors that affect’s a person’s tendency of smoking in...