Posted: March 23rd, 2023

Critical Review of Epidemiologic Literature

Introduction

Tobacco abuse and related substances have continued to be fatal for both smokers and nonsmokers. Since 2010 when the U.S. adopted the 2020 healthy people plan, other countries have followed in its footsteps. The reason for this change is inclined by the need to establish comprehensive legislative strategies for controlling tobacco abuse, as it is the leading factor in causing deaths, disabilities, and diseases related to nicotine emissions. On the other hand, various studies have been carried out to appraise tobacco control strategies. Therefore, this study aims at reviewing Ealing state’s epidemiologic study on control strategies of tobacco usage in this region.

The study question in this research is to determine whether monitoring tobacco use is crucial in reducing disabilities, illnesses, and deaths (Davis & Chauhan, 2014). The relevance of this question has remained critical since the emergence of the Healthy People 2020 document, where relevant information related to tobacco use was identified. For that reason, reducing the impacts of tobacco continues to be an essential topic as it is one way of improving the global well-being of people’s health (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). In addition, the study question maintains its relevance considering that tobacco smoke is the leading cause of fatal side effects to both the first abuser and the passive smoker. 

Notably, this study introduced two main side effects resulting from tobacco smoking. The first one has increased fire accidents due to the careless disposal of cigarette filters. Secondly, there is an escalation of mental illnesses due to nicotine abuse and environmental littering to improper disposal methods of cigarette residues and filters (Davis & Chauhan, 2014). In fact, the study maintains that mentally ill patients smoke more than other individuals, which results in early deaths. Consequently, the study has provided that cigarette smokers are the leading agents in causing fire incidents since a third of smokers dangerously dispose of match sticks and cigar remains (Davis & Chauhan, 2014). On the other hand, the litter that smokers cause is expensive for county cleaners as most of the residues found in the urban streets are mainly from tobacco waste.

The primary question in this study is why tobacco control strategies are needed to reduce the harmful effects caused by nicotine abuse in Ealing (Davis & Chauhan, 2014). The study design in this literature was useful as it incorporated various strategies for sourcing information. For instance, interview surveys have been used to determine smoking prevalence in young people. In addition, the study design has cited information from scholarly articles and health guidelines for proper information on smoking statistics in mental hospitals. Imaging data has also been applied to show tobacco cessation in areas where people are deprived of medical care and a medical review charts showing the achievement made by those who quit versus the target number. Mostly, the study methods used in the Ealing tobacco control strategic plan of 2013-2016 literature adequately address a possible occurrence of bias in the entire study. As such, the researchers provide various citations to show that the published information is not from one resource due to the possible existence of source bias (Pannucci & Wilkins, 2010).

Apparently, the Ealing Tobacco cessation strategy attempts to use the original research protocol. In this case, the provision of a well-laid methodology where detailed information on procedures, measurements, investigations, and other crucial elements is analyzed (Chan et al., 2013). Additionally, the research presents a follow-up study, management of data, quality assurance, outcomes, ethically consenting forms, and each member’s roles. However, it is worth noting that background information, safety considerations, the time taken, expected problems, the budget, and other supporting funds are lacking in this article.

The study aims at determining whether there is a need for tobacco control strategies in Ealing (Davis & Chauhan, 2014). Particularly, the authors have confirmed to test the validity of this requirement by providing the damages caused by smokers in both the local, environmental, and individual contexts. The article concludes that an action plan should be laid to eliminate this substance abuse to improve the inhabitants’ quality of life and health (Davis & Chauhan, 2014). Notably, the data provided justifies this conclusion through an analysis of information from affected people considering their ages, occupational departments, genders, and health conditions. Moreover, this article does not show any conflict of interest that is mostly prompted by financial reasons (Goldner, 2009). In this case, the tobacco control alliance funds and monitors have been keen on supporting the action plan to benefit the entire Ealing community.

Significantly, the Ealing government tobacco cessation strategic plan requires a critical appraisal in several areas of cohort studies and case studies for the viability and reliability of this document (Young & Solomon, 2009). Case studies are crucial in identifying with patients, while cohort studies are essential in designing a link between both nicotine addicts and their caregivers.

Conclusion

Apparently, the review above shows that Ealing county is in consensus that there is a need to lay down an action plan for reducing and eliminating tobacco use in this region. Particularly, the authors of this article have composed a good study free of bias or conflict of interest while showing the fatalities of tobacco, thus ensuring that this topic remains relevant. Finally, it is imperative to establish comprehensive legislative strategies for controlling tobacco abuse since its abuse has been connected to various health issues.

References

Chan, A. W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K, &

Doré, C. J. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(3), 200-207.

Davis, R & Chauhan, S. (2014). Ealing tobacco control strategy 2013-2016. Smokefree Ealing,

1(10), 1-23.

Goldner, J. (2009). Regulating conflicts of interest in research: the paper tiger needs real teeth. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 53, 1211-1252

Pannucci, C. J., & Wilkins, E. G. (2010). Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 126(2), 619–625.

US Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 17, 1-28.

Young, J. M., & Solomon, M. J. (2009). How to critically appraise an article. Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 6(2), 82-91.