scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Linda L. Pederson

Bio: Linda L. Pederson is an academic researcher from Morehouse School of Medicine. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Tobacco control. The author has an hindex of 28, co-authored 59 publications receiving 3111 citations. Previous affiliations of Linda L. Pederson include University of Toronto & University of Western Ontario.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The analysis of psychosocial risk factors for smoking presented in the United States surgeon general’s 1994 report on smoking and health is extended and a theoretical frame of reference for understanding the development of smoking is proposed.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE To extend the analysis of psychosocial risk factors for smoking presented in the United States surgeon general’s 1994 report on smoking and health, and to propose a theoretical frame of reference for understanding the development of smoking. DATA SOURCES General Science Index, Medline, PsycLIT, Sociofile, Sociological Abstracts, and Smoking and Health. Holdings of the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario Library as well as the authors’ personal files. STUDY SELECTION Reviewed literature focused on studies that examined the association of sociodemographic, environmental, behavioural, and personal variables with smoking. DATA SYNTHESIS Adolescent smoking was associated with age, ethnicity, family structure, parental socioeconomic status, personal income, parental smoking, parental attitudes, sibling smoking, peer smoking, peer attitudes and norms, family environment, attachment to family and friends, school factors, risk behaviours, lifestyle, stress, depression/distress, self-esteem, attitudes, and health concerns. It is unclear whether adolescent smoking is related to other psychosocial variables. CONCLUSIONS Attempts should be made to use common definitions of outcome and predictor variables. Analyses should include multivariate and bivariate models, with some attempt in the multivariate models to test specific hypotheses. Future research should be theory driven and consider the range of possible factors, such as social, personal, economic, environmental, biological, and physiological influences, that may influence smoking behaviour. The apparent inconsistencies in relationships between parental socioeconomic status and adolescent disposable income need to be resolved as does the underlying constructs for which socioeconomic status is a proxy.

951 citations

04 Sep 2003
TL;DR: The findings underscore the need to expand surveillance of the disease burden caused by smoking and to establish comprehensive tobacco-use prevention and cessation efforts to reduce the adverse health impact of smoking.
Abstract: Each year in the United States, approximately 440,000 persons die of a cigarette smoking-attributable illness, resulting in 5.6 million years of potential life lost, $75 billion in direct medical costs, and $82 billion in lost productivity. To assess smoking-attributable morbidity, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Research Triangle Institute, and CDC analyzed data from three sources: the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES III), and the U.S. Census. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which indicate that an estimated 8.6 million persons in the United States have serious illnesses attributed to smoking; chronic bronchitis and emphysema account for 59% of all smoking-attributable diseases. These findings underscore the need to expand surveillance of the disease burden caused by smoking and to establish comprehensive tobacco-use prevention and cessation efforts to reduce the adverse health impact of smoking.

153 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Except for the positive relationship between income status and high alcohol intake, measures of ‘unhealthy’ behaviours were inversely associated with the socio-economic indices, suggesting that individuals in lower socio- economic groups are at an increased risk for health problems.
Abstract: Data from the 1990 Ontario Health Survey were used to investigate the association of socio-economic status with the likelihood of meeting current recommendations for four health behaviours (smoking, fat intake, alcohol consumption, and physical activity level) in adults living in Ontario (Canada). Health behaviours were categorised as ‘unhealthy’ if they did not meet current recommendations in Ontario (smoking, fat intake < 30% of dietary energy, alcohol intake < 14 units per week, low level of leisure-time physical activity). Two summary variables based on the number ofO unhealthyO behaviours were also examined: the crude number of ‘unhealthy’ behaviours reported and the likelihood of reporting 3 or 4 ‘unhealthy’ behaviours. Four measures of socio-economic status were used: educational achievement, household income status, source of household income, and occupational prestige. Multiple logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to explore the association of each ‘unhealthy’ behaviour and of the summary variables with socio-economic status indicators (taken independently or simultaneously), controlling for demographic characteristics. Except for the positive relationship between income status and high alcohol intake, measures of ‘unhealthy’ behaviours were inversely associated with the socio-economic indices, suggesting that individuals in lower socio-economic groups are at an increased risk for health problems.

128 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Contin strong efforts and a long-term societal commitment to tobacco use prevention are needed, given the unprecedented declines in smoking among most subpopulations since the mid- to late 1990s.
Abstract: Objectives. We sought to describe long-term adolescent and young adult smoking trends and patterns.Methods. We analyzed adolescent data from Monitoring the Future, 1976 to 2005, and young adult (aged 18–24 years) data from the National Health Interview Survey, 1974 to 2005, overall and in subpopulations to identify trends in current cigarette smoking prevalence.Results. Five metapatterns emerged: we found (1) a large increase and subsequent decrease in overall smoking over the past 15 years, (2) a steep decline in smoking among Blacks through the early 1990s, (3) a gender gap reversal among older adolescents and young adults who smoked over the past 15 years, (4) similar trends in smoking for most subgroups since the early 1990s, and (5) a large decline in smoking among young adults with less than a high school education.Conclusions. Long-term patterns for adolescent and young adult cigarette smoking were decidedly nonlinear, and we found evidence of a cohort effect among young adults. Continued strong ef...

106 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Investigation of the stress-coping hypothesis and other possible effect modifiers as they relate to ever-smoking revealed that stress was important for both males and females, whereas for females, mother smoking was the most important factor followed by rebelliousness, and implications for design of prevention programs are discussed.

104 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2015, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2016, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2019, 1,762,450 new cancer cases and 606,880 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006-2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007-2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Although the racial gap in cancer mortality is slowly narrowing, socioeconomic inequalities are widening, with the most notable gaps for the most preventable cancers. For example, compared with the most affluent counties, mortality rates in the poorest counties were 2-fold higher for cervical cancer and 40% higher for male lung and liver cancers during 2012-2016. Some states are home to both the wealthiest and the poorest counties, suggesting the opportunity for more equitable dissemination of effective cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. A broader application of existing cancer control knowledge with an emphasis on disadvantaged groups would undoubtedly accelerate progress against cancer.

16,028 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Slow momentum for some cancers amenable to early detection is juxtaposed with notable gains for other common cancers, and it is notable that long‐term rapid increases in liver cancer mortality have attenuated in women and stabilized in men.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2016) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2017) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2020, 1,806,590 new cancer cases and 606,520 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. The cancer death rate rose until 1991, then fell continuously through 2017, resulting in an overall decline of 29% that translates into an estimated 2.9 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. This progress is driven by long-term declines in death rates for the 4 leading cancers (lung, colorectal, breast, prostate); however, over the past decade (2008-2017), reductions slowed for female breast and colorectal cancers, and halted for prostate cancer. In contrast, declines accelerated for lung cancer, from 3% annually during 2008 through 2013 to 5% during 2013 through 2017 in men and from 2% to almost 4% in women, spurring the largest ever single-year drop in overall cancer mortality of 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. Yet lung cancer still caused more deaths in 2017 than breast, prostate, colorectal, and brain cancers combined. Recent mortality declines were also dramatic for melanoma of the skin in the wake of US Food and Drug Administration approval of new therapies for metastatic disease, escalating to 7% annually during 2013 through 2017 from 1% during 2006 through 2010 in men and women aged 50 to 64 years and from 2% to 3% in those aged 20 to 49 years; annual declines of 5% to 6% in individuals aged 65 years and older are particularly striking because rates in this age group were increasing prior to 2013. It is also notable that long-term rapid increases in liver cancer mortality have attenuated in women and stabilized in men. In summary, slowing momentum for some cancers amenable to early detection is juxtaposed with notable gains for other common cancers.

15,080 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the United States, the cancer death rate has dropped continuously from its peak in 1991 through 2018, for a total decline of 31%, because of reductions in smoking and improvements in early detection and treatment as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2017) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2018) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2021, 1,898,160 new cancer cases and 608,570 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. After increasing for most of the 20th century, the cancer death rate has fallen continuously from its peak in 1991 through 2018, for a total decline of 31%, because of reductions in smoking and improvements in early detection and treatment. This translates to 3.2 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. Long-term declines in mortality for the 4 leading cancers have halted for prostate cancer and slowed for breast and colorectal cancers, but accelerated for lung cancer, which accounted for almost one-half of the total mortality decline from 2014 to 2018. The pace of the annual decline in lung cancer mortality doubled from 3.1% during 2009 through 2013 to 5.5% during 2014 through 2018 in men, from 1.8% to 4.4% in women, and from 2.4% to 5% overall. This trend coincides with steady declines in incidence (2.2%-2.3%) but rapid gains in survival specifically for nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). For example, NSCLC 2-year relative survival increased from 34% for persons diagnosed during 2009 through 2010 to 42% during 2015 through 2016, including absolute increases of 5% to 6% for every stage of diagnosis; survival for small cell lung cancer remained at 14% to 15%. Improved treatment accelerated progress against lung cancer and drove a record drop in overall cancer mortality, despite slowing momentum for other common cancers.

9,661 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Progress has stagnated for breast and prostate cancers but strengthened for lung cancer, coinciding with changes in medical practice related to cancer screening and/or treatment, and mortality patterns reflect incidence trends.
Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population‐based cancer occurrence and outcomes. Incidence data (through 2018) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2019) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2022, 1,918,030 new cancer cases and 609,360 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States, including approximately 350 deaths per day from lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer death. Incidence during 2014 through 2018 continued a slow increase for female breast cancer (by 0.5% annually) and remained stable for prostate cancer, despite a 4% to 6% annual increase for advanced disease since 2011. Consequently, the proportion of prostate cancer diagnosed at a distant stage increased from 3.9% to 8.2% over the past decade. In contrast, lung cancer incidence continued to decline steeply for advanced disease while rates for localized‐stage increased suddenly by 4.5% annually, contributing to gains both in the proportion of localized‐stage diagnoses (from 17% in 2004 to 28% in 2018) and 3‐year relative survival (from 21% to 31%). Mortality patterns reflect incidence trends, with declines accelerating for lung cancer, slowing for breast cancer, and stabilizing for prostate cancer. In summary, progress has stagnated for breast and prostate cancers but strengthened for lung cancer, coinciding with changes in medical practice related to cancer screening and/or treatment. More targeted cancer control interventions and investment in improved early detection and treatment would facilitate reductions in cancer mortality.

7,115 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article found that self-esteem does not predict the quality or duration of relationships, nor does it predict the likelihood of cheating and bullying in children, and the highest and lowest rates of cheating were found in different subcategories of high selfesteem.
Abstract: Self-esteem has become a household word. Teachers, parents, therapists, and others have focused efforts on boosting self-esteem, on the assumption that high self-esteem will cause many positive outcomes and benefits-an assumption that is critically evaluated in this review. Appraisal of the effects of self-esteem is complicated by several factors. Because many people with high self-esteem exaggerate their successes and good traits, we emphasize objective measures of outcomes. High self-esteem is also a heterogeneous category, encompassing people who frankly accept their good qualities along with narcissistic, defensive, and conceited individuals. The modest correlations between self-esteem and school performance do not indicate that high self-esteem leads to good performance. Instead, high self-esteem is partly the result of good school performance. Efforts to boost the self-esteem of pupils have not been shown to improve academic performance and may sometimes be counterproductive. Job performance in adults is sometimes related to self-esteem, although the correlations vary widely, and the direction of causality has not been established. Occupational success may boost self-esteem rather than the reverse. Alternatively, self-esteem may be helpful only in some job contexts. Laboratory studies have generally failed to find that self-esteem causes good task performance, with the important exception that high self-esteem facilitates persistence after failure. People high in self-esteem claim to be more likable and attractive, to have better relationships, and to make better impressions on others than people with low self-esteem, but objective measures disconfirm most of these beliefs. Narcissists are charming at first but tend to alienate others eventually. Self-esteem has not been shown to predict the quality or duration of relationships. High self-esteem makes people more willing to speak up in groups and to criticize the group's approach. Leadership does not stem directly from self-esteem, but self-esteem may have indirect effects. Relative to people with low self-esteem, those with high self-esteem show stronger in-group favoritism, which may increase prejudice and discrimination. Neither high nor low self-esteem is a direct cause of violence. Narcissism leads to increased aggression in retaliation for wounded pride. Low self-esteem may contribute to externalizing behavior and delinquency, although some studies have found that there are no effects or that the effect of self-esteem vanishes when other variables are controlled. The highest and lowest rates of cheating and bullying are found in different subcategories of high self-esteem. Self-esteem has a strong relation to happiness. Although the research has not clearly established causation, we are persuaded that high self-esteem does lead to greater happiness. Low self-esteem is more likely than high to lead to depression under some circumstances. Some studies support the buffer hypothesis, which is that high self-esteem mitigates the effects of stress, but other studies come to the opposite conclusion, indicating that the negative effects of low self-esteem are mainly felt in good times. Still others find that high self-esteem leads to happier outcomes regardless of stress or other circumstances. High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex. If anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation, which may increase early sexual activity or drinking, but in general effects of self-esteem are negligible. One important exception is that high self-esteem reduces the chances of bulimia in females. Overall, the benefits of high self-esteem fall into two categories: enhanced initiative and pleasant feelings. We have not found evidence that boosting self-esteem (by therapeutic interventions or school programs) causes benefits. Our findings do not support continued widespread efforts to boost self-esteem in the hope that it will by itself foster improved outcomes. In view of the heterogeneity of high self-esteem, indiscriminate praise might just as easily promote narcissism, with its less desirable consequences. Instead, we recommend using praise to boost self-esteem as a reward for socially desirable behavior and self-improvement.

3,262 citations