Table 1.
Charcteristics | Mexico |
Uruguay |
||
---|---|---|---|---|
2008 | 2010 | 2008 | 2010 | |
(n = 1760) | (n = 1840) | (n = 1379) | (n = 1411) | |
Sex | ||||
Female | 38% | 38% | 51% | 51% |
Male | 62% | 62% | 49% | 49% |
Age | ||||
18–24 | 18% | 17% | 19% | 17% |
25–39 | 37% | 36% | 33% | 33% |
40–54 | 28% | 29% | 30% | 31% |
55 or older | 16% | 18% | 19% | 19% |
Education | ||||
<Middle school | 28% | 31% | 25% | 23% |
Middle school | 29% | 30% | 36% | 32% |
High School | 27% | 24% | 22% | 26% |
>High School | 17% | 15% | 17% | 19% |
Incomea | ||||
Low | 25% | 28% | 17% | 8% |
Middle–low | 24% | 24% | 21% | 13% |
Midde–high | 20% | 21% | 27% | 25% |
High | 19% | 20% | 27% | 43%c |
Missing | 12% | 7% | 8% | 11% |
Smoking behaviourb | ||||
Non-daily | 32% | 28% | 8% | 8% |
Low daily consumption | 38% | 37% | 41% | 39% |
High daily consumption | 24% | 20% | 44% | 40% |
Quitter | 7% | 15% | 6% | 13% |
Cities | ||||
Capital cityc | 23% | 23% | 71% | 71% |
Other cities | 77% | 77% | 29% | 29% |
SHS exposure | ||||
Workplace | ||||
Did not work in enclosed workplace | 42% | 45% | 28% | 25% |
No SHS exposure in last month | 45% | 43% | 57% | 58% |
SHS exposure in last month | 13% | 12% | 15% | 17% |
Restaurant | ||||
Did not go to restaurant in last month | 73% | 73% | 70% | 71% |
No SHS exposure in last visit | 14% | 19% | 27% | 26% |
SHS exposure in last visit | 13% | 8% | 3% | 3% |
Bar | ||||
Did not go to bar in last month | 79% | 82% | 74% | 78% |
No SHS exposure in last visit | 7% | 7% | 20% | 17% |
SHS exposure in last visit | 14% | 11% | 6% | 5% |
From 2008 to 2010, 74% (1309/1760) of the Mexican cohort and 70.4% (971/1379) of the Uruguay cohort were followed, with replacements in 2010 (n = 531 in Mexico; n = 440 in Uruguay) recruited from same geographical units.
aIncome higher in 2010 than in 2008 for Uruguay, P < 0.001.
bHigher percentage of quitters in 2010 than in 2008, in both Uruguay and Mexico, P < 0.001.
cCapital city = Mexico City for Mexico and Montevideo for Uruguay.