European Regulatory Science on Tobacco: Policy Implementation to Reduce Lung Diseases (EUREST-PLUS)
Conditions: Tobacco Dependence
Sponsor: European Network For Smoking and Tobacco Prevention

ITC 6 European Country Survey
Wave 1 Technical Report
February 1, 2017
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 681109

ITC 6 European Country Research Team
Dr. Constantine Vardavas1, Principal Investigator and EUREST-PLUS Coordinator
Dr. Ute Mons2, Principal Investigator, Germany
Dr. Yannis Tountas3, Principal Investigator, Greece
Mr. Tibor Demjén4, Principal Investigator, Hungary
Mr. Krzysztof Przewo´zniak5, Principal Investigator, Poland
Dr. Witold Zato´nski5, Principal Investigator, Poland
Dr. Antigona Trofor6, Principal Investigator, Romania
Dr. Esteve Fernandez7, Principal Investigator, Spain
Mr. Nicolas Bécuwe8, Principal Investigator, Belgium
Ms. Sophie Goudet8, Co-investigator, Belgium
Mr. Christopher Hanley8, Data Analyst. Belgium
ITC 6 European Country International Research Team
Professor Geoffrey T. Fong9, Principal Investigator, Canada
Professor Mary E. Thompson10, Co-Investigator, Canada
Dr. Shannon Gravely9, Co-Investigator, Canada
Dr. Anne C.K. Quah9, Co-investigator, Canada
Mr. Thomas Agar9, Project Manager, Canada
Mr. Pete Driezen9, Senior Data Analyst, Canada
1 European Network on Smoking and Tobacco Prevention
2 German Cancer Research Center
3University of Athens, Medical School
4 Smoking or Health Hungarian Foundation (SHHF)
5 Health Promotion Foundation
6 Aer Pur Romania
7 Institut CatalÃ˘a dâ˘A´ZOncologia
8 Kantar Public
9 Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo
10 Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Waterloo
Funding: The ITC 6 European Country Project has received funding support from:
• European Union’s Horizon 2020 Program (Grant No. 681109 - Vardavas)
• University of Waterloo, Canada (Grant No. 118096 - Fong)
Suggested Citation: ITC Project. (2017, January). ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 (2016)
Technical Report. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and European Net-
work on Smoking and Tobacco Prevention, Brussels, Belgium.
2 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

CONTENTS
Contents
Preface
5
1
Introduction
6
1.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
1.2
Main Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
1.3
Survey Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
1.4
The Research Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
1.5
Country Timelines
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2
Survey Process, Protocols and Fieldwork
23
2.1
Survey Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2
Replenishment Participant Selection and Consent
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3
Household Screener Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4
Main Questionnaire
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.1
Screeners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4.2
Content of Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.3
Language of Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4.4
Length of the Interview
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5
Remuneration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.6
Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6.1
Survey Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6.2
Field Work Preparation and Interviewer Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6.3
Survey Fieldwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6.4
Questionnaire Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6.5
Data Checking and Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.6.6
Data Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 3

CONTENTS
3
Monitoring and Quality Control
29
3.1
Management of Fieldwork Teams
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.2
Survey Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3
Monitoring and Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4
Handling Special Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4
Sampling Design and Weight Construction
31
4.1
Sampling design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.2
Weight construction
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2.1
General comments about weight construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.2.2
Wave 1 weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.3
Taking the sampling design into account in analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3.1
Speciﬁcation of strata and PSUs for analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.3.2
Bootstrap weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendices
39
A Sample size tables
39
B Benchmark/calibration ﬁgures
39
C Summary statistics of the weights
58
D Field materials
63
E
Survey information letter and consent
63
F
Final outcomes rates
67
G Country proﬁles
69
4 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

CONTENTS
Preface
This technical report documents the ﬁrst wave of the International Tobacco Control Policy
Evaluation Survey carried out in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain.
This project is known as the ITC 6 European Country Project (6E) under the larger project
called European Regulatory Science on Tobacco: Policy Implementation to Reduce Lung
Disease (EUREST-PLUS). Wave 1 was conducted from June to September 2016.
This report also presents the weight calculations for the Wave 1 respondents.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 5

1
INTRODUCTION
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
The International Tobacco Control (ITC) Project is a multi-country prospective cohort study
designed to measure the psychosocial and behavioural impact of key policies of the World
Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain make up the six countries of the
ITC 6 European Country Project (6E). Hungary was the ﬁrst state to ratify the FCTC in April
2004, followed by Germany in December of that year. Spain ratiﬁed the FCTC in January
2005. Greece was next to ratify the FCTC in January 2006, followed by the remaining states
(Poland and Romania) in September 2006. In addition to the FCTC, each country is a party
of the European Union, and as such must also comply with the European Commission’s
Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), the latest of which was made law in 2014 with a compli-
ance date of May 20, 2016. Previous to the TPD of 2014 was the TPD of 2001, under which
all six European States had to meet minimum standards of tobacco labelling and packaging
restrictions, as well as regulations regarding cross-border trading and product ingredients.
The latest TPD (2014) sets regulations on the following areas:
(i) Ingredients and emissions, including maximum emission levels on tar, nicotine, and
CO2, as well as restrictions on additives such as ﬂavours and stimulants
(ii) Labelling and packaging restrictions, setting minimum dimensions for packages of
tobacco as minimum standards on graphic (combined) tobacco health warning labels
(iii) Traceability and security measures to combat illegal cigarette smuggling and counter-
feit products
(iv) Cross-border purchase regulations
(v) E-cigarette product regulations including pan-European restrictions on the amount
of nicotine allowed within e-cigarettes/e-liquid, product design elements such as reser-
voir sizes, and more.
To evaluate the effect of the FCTC and the TPD (2014), the ITC Project is conducting the ITC
6E Project as part of the European Regulatory Science on Tobacco: Policy Implementation to
Reduce Lung Disease (EUREST PLUS) Project. The main objective of EUREST-PLUS Project
is to monitor and evaluate the impact of the implementing acts of the TPD and assess these
within the context of FCTC ratiﬁcation at a European level.
The ITC 6E Project will run two prospective cohort surveys which will parallel surveys of
adult smokers in 22 other ITC countries—(Canada, United States, United Kingdom, Aus-
tralia, Ireland, Thailand, Malaysia, China, South Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Uruguay,
France, The Netherlands, Brazil, Mauritius, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Kenya, Zambia, and
Abu Dhabi – United Arab Emirates).
The ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Survey was carried out from June to September 2016.
6 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
1.2
Main Objectives
Representing three of the seven work packages (WP) of the EUREST-PLUS Project, the ITC
6 European Country Project is key to meeting the overall EUREST-PLUS objectives. Those
objectives are:
a) To evaluate the psychosocial and behavioral impact of TPD implementation and FCTC
implementation, through the creation of a longitudinal cohort of adult smokers in 6
EU MS (Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain; total n=6000) in a
pre- vs. post-TPD study design (Work Package, or WP, 2 and 3). Moreover, these eval-
uation studies of the impact of the TPD and FCTC will be conducted with respect to
vulnerable populations, including low-income/socio-economic status (SES) groups
and those smokers with respiratory co-morbidities (and/or those with pre-morbid
symptomatology). Another important topic that will be addressed in the scientiﬁc
studies of the ITC 6E cohorts will be a focus on e-cigarettes, addressing basic issues of
transition rates from cigarettes to e-cigarettes or dual use, rates of reversion back to
cigarettes and rates of quitting all nicotine products. Studies that examine e-cigarettes
will be linked to additional analysis, focussing on product testing of various design
features of e-cigarettes systematically procured in those same 6 countries where the
ITC 6 European Country Surveys will be conducted.
b) To assess support for TPD implementation through secondary dataset analyses of the
2015 Special Eurobarometer on Tobacco Survey (SETS), a cross-sectional survey per-
formed among 27,000 adults in all 28 EU MS, before the TPD is implemented, and to
monitor progress in FCTC implementation in the EU over the past years through trend
analyses on the merged datasets of the 2009, 2012 and 2015 SETS datasets (n=80,000),
with a special focus on vulnerable populations (youth, minorities, unemployed, etc.)
(WP5)
c) To document changes in e-cigarette product parameters (technical design, labelling/
packaging and chemical composition) following TPD implementation of Article 20 of
the TPD. (WP6)
d) To enhance innovative joint research collaborations on chronic, non-communicable
diseases (NCDs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and in vulnerable pop-
ulations in high-income countries (HICs), a key priority of the Global Alliance for
Chronic Disease (GACD) outlined in the call. We will speciﬁcally address these cross-
country analyses through the pooling and comparisons across both other EU coun-
tries of the ITC Project (6E, UK, France, Netherlands), and other non-EU countries
from LMICs and HICs from the global ITC Project (including key countries of com-
parison such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States, China). (WP4)
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 7

1
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of the ITC 6 European Country Survey are:
a. To examine the prevalence and patterns of tobacco use in all six European States.
The ITC 6 European Country Survey provides multidimensional estimates of preva-
lence and patterns of tobacco use among the populations of all six participating states.
It describes the consumption patterns and quitting behaviour within each country’s
population, as well as each population’s knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about to-
bacco use. As well, the survey investigates each country’s growth or absence of aware-
ness and use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes).
b. To examine the impact of the Tobacco Products Directive (2014) in all 6 countries
throughout the course of the study period. The ITC 6E Survey evaluates the impact
of the TPD in the following areas:
• Health warning labels and package descriptors
• Tobacco ingredients and additives
• Cross-border sales of tobacco products
• E-cigarette use and behaviour
The survey also evaluates the impact of the FCTC in the following areas:
• Smoke-free legislation
• Pricing and taxation of tobacco products, as well as the prevalence of compen-
satory behaviours that may offset the impact of taxation (e.g., cheaper purchas-
ing options, smuggling)
• Education and support for cessation
• Tobacco advertising and promotion
This report provides a detailed picture of the current tobacco control policy landscape
in all six European countries, including cigarette smokers and e-cigarette users’ be-
liefs, attitudes, and behaviours, following the passage of the TPD in 2014.
c. To compare smoking behaviour and the impact of policies between the 6 European
countries and other ITC countries. The ITC Project aims to provide an evidence base
to guide policies enacted under the FCTC, and to systematically evaluate the effective-
ness of these legislative efforts. All ITC Surveys are developed using the same concep-
tual framework and methods, and the survey questions are designed to be identical
or functionally equivalent in order to allow strong comparisons across countries. The
evaluation studies conducted from the ITC Surveys take advantage of natural environ-
ments created when an ITC country implements a policy: changes in policy-relevant
variables in that country from pre- to post-policy survey waves are compared to those
in other ITC countries where that policy has not changed. This research design pro-
vides high levels of internal validity, allowing more conﬁdent judgments regarding the
possible causal impact of the policy.
8 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
d. To suggest changes to current European tobacco policies. Recommendations to
strengthen the current tobacco policies are made based on existing and derived sur-
vey information. The aim is to optimise the effects of tobacco control policies with re-
gard to situational and individual difference moderators: (a) demographic variables;
(b) personality variables (e.g. time perspective); (c) environmental context (e.g. num-
ber of peers/family members who smoke); and (d) the individual’s smoking history
(e.g. past quit attempts, smoking intensity and quitting smoking).
1.3
Survey Design
The ITC 6E Survey is a longitudinal cohort study. In other words, the respondents who par-
ticipate in this survey will be re-contacted in the future to participate in follow-up surveys.
The respondents were recruited through a face-to-face multi-stage stratiﬁed random sam-
ple of the general population aged 18 or more.
1.4
The Research Team
The ITC 6 European Country Survey is conducted by researchers throughout Europe from
both the six participating countries as well as other institution partners within Europe and
abroad.
Investigators
Organization
Country
1. Constantine Vardavas
(coordinator)
European Network on Smoking and Tobacco Pre-
vention (ENSP)
Belgium
2. Ann McNeill
Kings College London (KCL)
United Kingdom
3. Ute Mons
German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ)
Germany
4. Marc Willemsen
University of Maastricht (UniMaas)
Netherlands
5. Yiannis Tountas
University of Athens (UoA)
Greece
6. Antigona Trofor
Aer Pur Romania (APR)
Romania
7. Brian Ward
European Respiratory Society (ERS)
Switzerland
8. Geoffrey Fong
University of Waterloo (UW)
Canada
9. Esteve Fernandez
Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO)
Spain
10. Tibor Demjén
Smoking or Health Hungarian Founation (SHFF)
Hungary
11. Witold Zatonski
Health Promotion Foundation
Poland
12. Aristidis Tsatsakis
University of Crete (UoC)
Greece
13. Nicolas Bécuwe
Kantar Public Brussels (KP)
Belgium
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 9

1
INTRODUCTION
1.5
Country Timelines
Below are the timelines in conjunction with the tobacco control policies and ITC wave for
each of the 6 countries.
10 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 11

1
INTRODUCTION
12 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 13

1
INTRODUCTION
14 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 15

1
INTRODUCTION
16 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 17

1
INTRODUCTION
18 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 19

1
INTRODUCTION
20 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

1
INTRODUCTION
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 21

1
INTRODUCTION
22 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

2
SURVEY PROCESS, PROTOCOLS AND FIELDWORK
2
Survey Process, Protocols and Fieldwork
2.1
Survey Process
The ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 ﬁeldwork was managed and coordinated by Kantar
Public Brussels. The ﬁeldwork was conducted in the 6 European countries by the following
agencies: Foerster and Thelen (Germany), Metron Analysis (Greece), Kantar TNS Hoffman
(Hungary), Kantar TNS Polska (Poland), Curs (Romania) and Kantar TNS Spain (Spain).
The ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Survey ﬁeldwork consisted of 7 main steps (see Ap-
pendix B). The interviewers:
1. Approached a household and introduced themselves;
2. Administered the Household Screener Survey to the Most Knowledgeable Individual
(MKI);
3. Had each selected respondent read the information letter and obtained the respon-
dent’s consent;
4. Administered a survey screener to each selected respondent;
5. Completed the respondents’ individual questionnaires;
6. Completed the individual outcome codes in the HRF/HEF Form B;
7. Thanked the respondents and provided a token of appreciation to the household. For
each household of respondents, the respondent was presented with a token of appre-
ciation of varying value dependent on the country as remuneration for their time (See
Section 2.5 for remuneration amounts).
2.2
Replenishment Participant Selection and Consent
Identifying eligible members.
Adult cigarette smokers formed the only category of eligi-
ble respondents in a household.
Selection of household members.
Household members aged 18 years and older were sam-
pled. From households with cigarette smokers, up to one male and one female cigarette
smoker were selected using the last birthday method of selection for each.
Information and consent.
Once a respondent was selected, the information letter was
provided and consent was administered to the respondent (See Appendix B).
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 23

2
SURVEY PROCESS, PROTOCOLS AND FIELDWORK
Table 1. Percentage of respondents who consented to take part in the second wave (Autumn
2017)
Consenting
Country
National Agency
Respondents (%)
Germany
Foerster and Thelen
93%
Greece
Metron Analysis
69%
Hungary
Kantar TNS (TNS Hoffmann)
60%
Poland
Kantar TNS (TNS Polska)
70%
Romania
Curs
95%
Spain
Kantar TNS Spain
97%
2.3
Household Screener Survey
In each selected household that contained eligible adult smokers, the identiﬁed key Infor-
mant or Most Knowledgeable Individual was given a brief Household Screener, from which
respondents were selected. The purpose of the household screener was to identify residents
of the household who ﬁt the screening criteria of the project: (1)18 years or older; (2) smoke
at least monthly.
If the Key Informant/Most Knowledgeable Individual was available at the ﬁrst household
visit, the Household Screener was administered, and then the individual household mem-
bers were selected and interviewed if possible. If not, an appointment was made to come
back to complete the Household Screener.
2.4
Main Questionnaire
2.4.1
Screeners
After completing the Household Screener and before administering the appropriate indi-
vidual questionnaires, each selected respondent was given an individual survey screener.
This screener conﬁrms the information supplied by the Most Knowledgeable Individual at
the individual level.
24 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

2
SURVEY PROCESS, PROTOCOLS AND FIELDWORK
2.4.2
Content of Survey
A summary of the survey questions is given below:
• Demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, education, income, socio-economic sta-
tus);
• Questions relevant to the policies of interest. These include measures of awareness
(e.g., of warning labels, product ingredients, cessation assistance, advertising and pro-
motion, prices, and e-cigarettes) and, where relevant, of more extensive cognitive pro-
cessing (e.g., thinking about health warnings, relative harm between alternative prod-
ucts);
• Moderator variables (e.g., time perspective, stress, co-morbidities);
• Well-established questions assessing smoking behaviour;
• Other important psychosocial predictors of smoking behaviour (psychosocial medi-
ating variables, e.g., normative beliefs, self-efﬁcacy, intentions to quit).
2.4.3
Language of Survey
The survey questionnaire was translated into the national languages of all six participating
countries: German; Greek; Hungarian; Polish; Romanian; and Spanish.
2.4.4
Length of the Interview
The survey was conducted by a face-to-face interview with the respondent. It took about 35
minutes to complete the survey questionnaire.
2.5
Remuneration
Interviewees were given the token of appreciation upon completion of the interview. Re-
ceipt of the token of appreciation was recorded by the interviewer as part of the post-interview
section of the questionnaire. The interviewer had to conﬁrm in the script that the respon-
dent had received his or her voucher. Remuneration amounts in each country are listed in
Table 2.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 25

2 SURVEYPROCESS,PROTOCOLSANDFIELDWORK
Table2.Remunerationamountsineachcountry
Country 
NationalAgency 
Incentive( )
Germany FoersterandThelen
10
Greece 
MetronAnalysis
5
Hungary KantarTNS(TNSHoffmann) 
10
Poland 
KantarTNS(TNSPolska)
10
Romania Curs
7
Spain 
KantarTNSSpain
3
2.6 ProgressReport
2.6.1 SurveyTranslation
Allthesurveysfor Wave1ﬁeldworkwereﬁnalizedbytheendof May2016.Translationof
thesurveydocumentsintothesixnationallanguagesalsotookplaceoverthecourseofthe
monthof May
.TranslationwashandledinhousebythesurveyﬁrmKantarPublicBrussels.
Thetranslationprocessusedwasthefollowing:ﬁrstthequestionnairewastranslatedby
anindependenttranslator. Thenthisversionwasrevisedtwice:ﬁrstbyanindependent
proof-readerandthenbythenationalagencyproject manager. Whenthetranslationwas
ﬁnaliseditwassentforapprovaltothenationalmembersoftheConsortiumwhosenttheir
ﬁnalcommentsandagreements.
2.6.2 FieldWorkPreparationandInterviewerTraining
ThesurveyﬁrmKantarPublicBrusselshandledallﬁeldworkpreparation withinthesix
countriesoverthemonthofJune2016.RepresentativesfromKantarPublicBrusselstrained
localcountryteamstousethetablet-basedCAPIsurvey
,aswellasensuringﬁeldworkoper-
atorsfollowedtheproperproceduresoutlinedintheprotocol.
2.6.3 SurveyFieldwork
TheﬁeldworkstartedonJune16,2016andcontinueduntilSeptember12,2016.Duetothe
internationalnatureoftheproject,eachcountryhadvaryingstartandcompletiondates.
Table3outlinestheﬁeldworkdateswithineachcountry
.
26|ITC6EuropeanCountry Wave1TechnicalReport

2
SURVEY PROCESS, PROTOCOLS AND FIELDWORK
Table 3. ITC Europe ﬁeldwork dates (2016).
Country
National Agency
Fieldwork Dates
Germany
Foerster and Thelen
June 15–August 30
Greece
Metron Analysis
June 16–September 12
Hungary
Kantar TNS (TNS Hoffmann)
June 22–July 20
Poland
Kantar TNS (TNS Polska)
June 25–August 11
Romania
Curs
June 25–August 8
Spain
Kantar TNS Spain
June 23–July 21
Fieldwork in Athens, Greece had to be suspended for one week during the month of Au-
gust (August 12 – August 19) due to much of the population being away in mid-August, a
common vacation period. Fieldwork was concluded on September 12, 2016.
In Romania, extra call backs were conducted between September 2 and September 12 to ask
BQ49221 (Q76.9) that could not be asked during the face-to-face survey. 789 respondents
out of 1003 were reached and asked this question.
The total number of respondents completing the survey in each country and the size of the
ﬁeld work teams are listed in Tables 4 and 5, respectively.
Table 4. Total respondents completing the ITC Europe Survey in each country
Country
National Agency
# Completes
Germany
Foerster and Thelen
1003
Greece
Metron Analysis
1000
Hungary
Kantar TNS (TNS Hoffmann)
1000
Poland
Kantar TNS (TNS Polska)
1006
Romania
Curs
1001
Spain
Kantar TNS Spain
1001
2.6.4
Questionnaire Checking
The ﬁnal version of the English questionnaire was checked by Kantar Public Brussels. Com-
ments were sent to University of Waterloo and then the questionnaire was ﬁnalised. The
master script of the questionnaire was then built. The script was checked by Kantar Public
Brussels and sent for approval to the University of Waterloo.
Once the script was ﬁnalised in English, the national scripts were implemented and checked
by national agencies before implementing the survey.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 27

2
SURVEY PROCESS, PROTOCOLS AND FIELDWORK
Table 5. Size of the ﬁeldwork team in each country
Country
National Agency
# Supervisors
# Interviewers
Germany
Foerster and Thelen
3
100
Greece
Metron Analysis
9
33
Hungary
Kantar TNS (TNS Hoffmann)
11
104
Poland
Kantar TNS (TNS Polska)
18
62
Romania
Curs
8
50
Spain
Kantar TNS Spain
4
24
2.6.5
Data Checking and Cleaning
Once data checking was completed by Kantar Public Brussels, the data ﬁles were transferred
securely to the University of Waterloo using an encrypted email and password sent by sep-
arate message.
Once the data were successfully transferred, the University of Waterloo data analyst com-
menced data cleaning. The data analyst conducted duplicate entry comparisons of the data
ﬁles, using the SAS statistical software and identiﬁed discrepancies between the two data
ﬁles. A list of these discrepancies were sent to the Kantar Public Brussels data manager for
veriﬁcation and correction. The Kantar Public Brussels data manager sent the corrections
to the University of Waterloo data analyst for veriﬁcation.
After discrepancies had been identiﬁed and corrections sent by the Kantar Public Brussels
data manager, the University of Waterloo data analyst conducted additional checks on the
data to ensure that all skip patterns had been correctly followed and to ensure that the data
did not contain invalid values. Respondent identiﬁer codes were also checked thoroughly
to ensure the data could be correctly linked within a survey wave and between waves over
time. Any additional discrepancies that were identiﬁed were also sent back to the in-country
data manager for veriﬁcation. This back and forth communication between the University
of Waterloo data analyst and the Kantar public Brussels data manager went on until the
data were deemed clean by the University of Waterloo data analyst. Following data process-
ing and cleaning, sampling weights were constructed for the dataset and the ﬁnal, cleaned
datasets were released to the country team, by posting them on the secure, internal ITC
website.
2.6.6
Data Delivery
Wave 1 data were delivered to the Data Management Centre (DMC) at the University of Wa-
terloo on October 4, 2016. A DMC data analyst processed the Wave 1 data which were re-
leased in January 2017 and have been available for further analysis.
28 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

3
MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL
3
Monitoring and Quality Control
3.1
Management of Fieldwork Teams
The project ﬁeldwork team consisted of ﬁve levels of management, including:
• Project Manager: responsible for overseeing all aspects of the survey ﬁeldwork (de-
sign of the survey, sampling design and central brieﬁng of national project managers),
as well as administrative duties and communicating with the ITC Six European Coun-
try team in Waterloo and the Project Consultants.
• Fieldwork Manager: responsible for managing the survey ﬁeldwork in all 6 countries,
setting up the central coordination of ﬁeldwork (supply sample, load script), ensuring
the daily communication with national project manager and applying quality control
on a regular basis.
• Project Manager (Fieldwork): responsible for managing national ﬁeldwork including
checking national script, data quality control and proving weekly reporting on ﬁeld-
work progress.
• Field Supervisors: responsible for supervising the interviewers, contacting local au-
thorities and monitoring the interviews.
• Interviewers: responsible for obtaining consent, interviewing respondents, and re-
porting to the ﬁeld supervisor with any problems.
3.2
Survey Protocol
An English survey protocol outlining the process in which ﬁeldwork was to be conducted
was written to ensure a benchmark standard for ﬁeldwork across each country. The survey
ﬁrm, Kantar Public Brussels, relayed the information outlined in the survey protocol to the
country teams developing a survey wave manual that was used for a central brieﬁng
3.3
Monitoring and Quality Assurance
To ensure the accuracy and quality of the ITC Six European Country Survey, the survey ﬁeld-
work was monitored in several ways.
• Centralised data management: The ﬁeldwork was centrally managed by Kantar Pub-
lic Brussels. Data were centrally transmitted via NFIELD software and therefore Kan-
tar Public Brussels were able to assess progress and access data on a regular basis.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 29

3
MONITORING AND QUALITY CONTROL
• Progress Reports: The Project Manager was provided regular progress reports on
completion rates and any problems or issues by the survey ﬁrm, Kantar Public Brus-
sels. Those reports were then presented to the Data Management team on a weekly
basis.
• Field Supervision: The Field Supervisor was in charge of supervising the interviewers,
helping them when they had a question regarding the contact procedure, the method-
ology or the script and liaising with the national agency.
• Identiﬁcation Numbers: Identiﬁcation numbers would be generated automatically
by the CAPI program. All interviews in the six countries were conducted on Tablets
using the NFIELD software.
• Quality control at local level: 10% back checks on interviews conducted within a
week of completion (national institutes). Checks on coding (at least 10% of answers
recoded as part of overall quality back check). Comparison between raw samples and
national universe (central team). Ensuring item response is 100% within each com-
pleted survey
3.4
Handling Special Situations
Private interviews.
Adult participants were interviewed alone whenever possible. If an-
other person insisted on being present, the respondent needed to agree for the interview to
proceed.
Proxy interviews.
A proxy interview is an interview conducted with another knowledge-
able member of the household on behalf of the selected respondent. Proxy interviews were
not allowed in the ITC Six European Country Survey.
Respondent not available.
If a respondent was unavailable, an appointment time (hard
appointment) was rescheduled to interview that respondent.
Substitution.
Only if a selected household was recorded to have the disposition “No one
at home” or “Cannot answer” for all four visits over four different times, (weekday day-time,
weekday nighttime, weekend day-time and weekend night-time) could the household be
replaced by a substitute, selected by the Field Supervisor.
Handling multiple respondents.
An interviewer could not interview two adults at the same
time.
30 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

4
SAMPLING DESIGN AND WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION
4
Sampling Design and Weight Construction
4.1
Sampling design
The ITC 6E Survey is a prospective longitudinal study, and its sampling design was chosen
to yield nationally representative random samples of adult smokers residing in Germany,
Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain. Respondents were interviewed between June
18 and September 12, 2016. All interviews were conducted face-to-face by interviewers us-
ing tablets (CAPI).
To qualify for the study, respondents had to be 18 years old or more, smoke at least monthly,
and have smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lives. In each country, a probability
sample of dwellings was approached. At each dwelling, an informant was identiﬁed and
asked the number of male smokers of at least 18 years of age and the number of female
smokers of at least 18 years of age. Where possible a male smoker and a female smoker were
selected from each household, using the Next Birthday method (Binson & Catania (2000)).
No substitution within a household was allowed, except when it was known that the selected
respondent would be absent for the entire ﬁeldwork period.
The probability sample of dwellings was chosen as follows in each country. The country
was divided into major geographic regions, namely NUTS2 regions for all countries except
Germany, where NUTS1 regions were used. (Excluded for Greece were the islands in the
Ionian Sea, the northern Aegean Sea and the southern Aegean Sea; excluded for Spain were
the Canaries, Ceuta and Melilla.) The geographic strata were the NUTS regions crossed with
degree of urbanization (urban, intermediate, rural). The strata were conceptually consid-
ered to be a union of clusters, each the size of an enumeration area, with the objective of
sampling 100 clusters per country, and obtaining 10 adult smokers in each cluster. Clusters
were allocated to strata proportionally to 18+ population size, subject to requiring at least
two clusters in each stratum, and selected at random within each stratum.
In each selected cluster, a random walk method was to be used to select dwellings. A starting
point was to be chosen at random using GPS coordinates, and a random walk path predrawn
on a tablet; the interviewers were to follow the path and approach every ﬁfth address on
the path, for household screening and potential selection of adult smokers for interview. If
an address corresponded to multiple households, a single household was to be selected at
random. For each chosen address, contact was attempted up to four times.
As indicated above, one randomly selected male smoker and one randomly selected female
smoker were to be selected for interview from a household where possible. Screening of
households was to continue until the required number of smokers from the cluster had been
interviewed.
The ITC 6E Wave 1 sample has the following sample sizes. Appendix A provides a detailed
breakdown of the sample size within each country by sampling region, degree of urbaniza-
tion and sex-age group.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 31

4
SAMPLING DESIGN AND WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION
Table 6. Country sample sizes
Country
Sample Size
Germany
1003
Greece
1000
Hungary
1000
Poland
1006
Romania
1001
Spain
1001
Overall
6011
4.2
Weight construction
4.2.1
General comments about weight construction
As with most survey weights, the ITC 6E Wave 1 weights are constructed to correct and ad-
just for sample misrepresentation caused by unequal sampling probabilities, frame error
(i.e., under-coverage and multiplicity), and non-response, as well as to improve precision of
estimates through the use of auxiliary information (e.g., smoking prevalences). We brieﬂy
describe these key concepts of weight construction in this section, but refer the reader to
Levy & Lemeshow (2008), chapter 16, for more detailed information.
Basic design weights are deﬁned as the reciprocals of selection probabilities, and thus adjust
for sample misrepresentation caused by unequal sampling probabilities. For example, a
smoker residing alone has a probability of selection twice that of a smoker residing with
another smoker of the same sex, and thus will typically have a smaller weight to compensate.
The sampling frame is effectively a set of starting points within selected areas of each stra-
tum, and may fail to cover some addresses. This is referred to as frame under-coverage, and
can result in non-coverage bias. To reduce non-coverage bias in the ITC 6E Survey, post-
stratiﬁcation adjustments have been performed on the sampling weights to ensure that, for
each stratum/sex/age group, the totals of the sampling weights are approximately equal to
assumed benchmarks; see step 3 in section 4.2.2. Note that these benchmark ﬁgures are
also referred to as calibration or target ﬁgures, and thus the post-stratiﬁcation adjustment
is also referred to as weight calibration.
If non-respondents behave differently than respondents, then inference based solely on the
sample of respondents will be biased unless adjustments are made. The greater the ex-
pected proportion of non-response, the greater this bias is likely to be. In the ITC 6E Survey,
the post-stratiﬁcation adjustments described in the above paragraph also adjust for non-
response bias. It should be noted that if data are missing completely at random (MCAR, see
32 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

4
SAMPLING DESIGN AND WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION
Little & Rubin (2002)) within each stratum/sex/age group, then non-response bias will be
completely eliminated. Realistically, however, non-response bias is reduced but not elimi-
nated by calibration in the ITC 6E Survey.
It is well known, from survey sampling theory, that in the vast majority of cases, the ra-
tio estimator of a population total has much greater precision than the commonly used
Horvitz-Thompson estimator. Heuristically, this is due to the fact that the ratio estimator
utilizes auxiliary (i.e., additional) information in addition to the sampling weights, whereas
the Horvitz-Thompson estimator does not. As mentioned above, benchmark ﬁgures have
been used to calibrate the ITC 6E sampling weights in order to reduce biases from frame er-
rors and non-response. A consequence of using this auxiliary information in weight compu-
tation is that the precision of most estimates is increased. The calibrating procedure yields
so-called ratio weights, which enable all estimators to inherit the increased precision of the
ratio estimator.
4.2.2
Wave 1 weights
Within each country, computation of sampling weights for the smokers who completed the
Wave 1 survey proceeded as follows.
Step 1: Each respondent i was assigned an initial weight w(1)
i , which can be viewed as an
adjustment for the probability of selection within a given household. Formally, the
w(1)
i
weights are given by
w(1)
i
=
#18+ smokers of same sex as i in household
#18+ smokers interviewed of same sex as i in household ,
Note that the denominator should be 1 by design; as well, #18+ smokers of same sex
as i in household was capped at 4 to prevent large households from having undue
inﬂuence on the weights.
Step 2: Traditionally in two stage designs, the primary sampling units (psus) correspond
to ﬁxed geographic areas, and are sampled with probability proportional to size.
Then approximately the same number of dwelling addresses is chosen at random in
each psu, giving approximately equal inclusion probabilities for households. Tradi-
tionally we compute the household inclusion probability within a stratum and psu
more precisely, and take the reciprocal as the household weight, but it is not a very
bad approximation to take all sample households within a stratum to have the same
“raising factor”, and the inclusion probabilities of individuals within strata to be ap-
proximately proportional to their inclusion probabilities within households.
In the case of the random walk design, the probability of inclusion of a dwelling or
household is the proportional to the number of random walks in which it would
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 33

4
SAMPLING DESIGN AND WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION
be one of the sampled households. It cannot be computed from the information
available„ and thus we have taken the inclusion probabilities of households to be
approximately equal within strata, and the inclusion probabilities of individuals
within strata to be approximately proportional to their inclusion probabilities within
households.
Step 3: A post-stratiﬁcation adjustment was then performed to calibrate the w(1)
i
weights
to smoking prevalence by stratum/sex/age groups. We used the same categories as
used in the Eurobarometer surveys. To this end, age was divided into 3 intervals
(i.e., [18, 39), [40, 54), and 55+ ); urbanization was divided into 3 categories: rural
(U1), intermediate (U2), and cities/large urban area (U3).
Eurobarometer survey data from 2014 were used to model smoking prevalence, us-
ing a weighted logistic regression of smoking status (binary) on sex, age group, ur-
banization and NUTS region. A sex × age group interaction was also included. This
yielded an estimated probability of being a smoker
p(s,a,u,r)
for someone with sex s, age group a, urbanization u and region r. (For this purpose,
in Spain, Navarra and Basque Country were put together, as were Rioja and Aragon;
in Germany, Bremen and Niedersachsen were put together; in each case, it was be-
cause the smaller region had no smoker respondents in the Eurobarometer survey.
In Spain, the smoking rate for Cantabria, with no Eurobarometer respondents, was
taken to be the average of the rates for Galicia and Asturias.)
The logistic regression analysis was restricted to Eurobarometer respondents aged
18 and older.
Projections from census data for January 1, 2015, found at the Eurostat website (see
the tables in Appendix B), were used to estimate
N(s,a,u,r),
the number of people of sex s, age group a, urbanization u and region r. Speciﬁcally,
there are tables for:
(a) Population for each region (NUTS2), age (18+, by single year age category) and
sex
(b) Number of households by region (NUTS2) by degree of urbanization
For Germany, it was possible to obtain the ﬁgures for the NUTS1 regions instead.
Using (b), and making the assumption that the population of individuals follows
the distribution of households by urban/intermediate/rural areas, it was possible
to multiply total population estimates for (a) by the proportion of the population in
34 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

4
SAMPLING DESIGN AND WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION
each urban category to obtain population estimates within the 4-way table needed
for calibration (region × urbanization × sex × age).
The degree of urbanization is not available on the Eurobarometer data for Germany;
a different classiﬁcation is used, as follows, where “Kern” = core and “Rand” = edge.
• Kern ≥500,000
• Rand ≥500,000
• Kern 100,000–500,000
• Rand 100,000–500,000
• Kern 50,000–100,000
• Rand 50,000–100,000
• 20,000–50,000
• 5000–20,000
• 2000–5000
• < 2000
Eurostat deﬁnes urban areas as areas where the majority of the population lives in
an urban centre of at least 50,000 people. Thus, in the Eurobarometer data, when
carrying out the logistic regression for Germany, the Kern areas were classiﬁed as
urban, the Rand areas as intermediate, and the rest as rural.
To estimate the number of smokers S(s,a,u,r) in a cell deﬁned by sex crossed with
age group, crossed with urbanization crossed with region, N(s,a,u,r) was multi-
plied by p(s,a,u,r).
See Appendix B for the tables of the estimated population sizes N(s,a,u,r), and the
estimated numbers of smokers in each S(s,a,u,r).
Some cells C(s,a,u,r) were merged so that the number of ITC respondents in each
cell would be not too small; see Appendix A. Accordingly, let the ﬁnal set of merged
cells for a country be denoted by C(k), k = 1,...,K , and let the estimated number
of smokers in the population in cell C(k) be denoted by S(k), which is the sum of
S(s,a,u,r) over all of the original cells C(s,a,u,r) in the merged cell C(k).
For respondents in cell C(k), the post-stratiﬁcation adjustment consisted in multi-
plying their w(1)
i
weights by a factor to produce calibrated w(2)
i
“inﬂation weights”.
The inﬂation weight for respondent i is interpreted as the number of people in the
population represented by that respondent. These inﬂation weights are such that
their sum over all respondents in a cell C(k) is equal to the estimated number of
adult smokers in that cell. Formally, if i is in cell C(k),
w(2)
i
= w(1)
i
×
S(k)
X
i∈c(k)
w(1)
i
,
where c(k) is the set of all respondents in cellC(k). The inﬂation weights are variable
“aDE49915v” in the data set.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 35

4
SAMPLING DESIGN AND WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION
Step 4: To facilitate comparisons among the 6 countries and with other ITC countries, the
w(2)
i
weights were rescaled to have a mean equal to 1 in each country. This yielded
the “analytic” w(3)
i
weights, which are formally deﬁned as
w(3)
i
= w(2)
i
×
nγ
X
i∈Sγ
w(2)
i
,
where Sγ is the set of all sampled smokers in country γ, and nγ is the size of that
sample from Table 1.
Hence, in each country γ, the w(3)
i
weights sum to nγ. The analytic weights are vari-
able “aDE49919v” in the data set.
The means and coefﬁcients of variation (CVs) of the inﬂation weights in the six countries
are given in Appendix C.
4.3
Taking the sampling design into account in analyses
The inﬂation weights and analytic weights adjust for sampling bias in the estimation of pop-
ulation means, ratios, regression coefﬁcients, and more generally parameters that are de-
ﬁned as the solutions of population level estimating equations. Analyses of the data should
also take into account the fact that the sampling design within each country is both strat-
iﬁed (tending to increase efﬁciency) and two-stage at the household level (tending to de-
crease efﬁciency because the sample is clustered in primary sampling units (PSUs). The
statistical software packages SAS, SPSS, Stata, R and SUDAAN are able to produce standard
errors and hypothesis tests for basic analyses that account for the complex sampling design.
In each case, the software requires the stratum and PSU variables and the weight variable to
be speciﬁed.
4.3.1
Speciﬁcation of strata and PSUs for analyses
In the ITC 6E sampling design, in each of the countries there was at least one stratum with
a single or “lonely PSU”. In such a case, there is no design-based unbiased estimator of the
variance of a linear estimator, such as an estimator of a population mean. Some software
packages, such as SAS, will simply omit from the analysis data from a stratum with a single
PSU. This makes the analysis representative only of the remaining strata. Other packages,
such as SUDAAN, use a model-based assumption to allow the single-PSU stratum to con-
tribute to the overall estimation of variance.
An alternative way of handling this situation is to collapse strata, most simply to merge each
single-PSU stratum with another that is geographically close to it and can be expected to
36 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

4
SAMPLING DESIGN AND WEIGHT CONSTRUCTION
have similar attributes. This choice of strata to merge is motivated by the need not to lose
too much of the advantage of stratiﬁcation: if the two strata being merged have very differ-
ent means, for example, the merging will make the standard error estimation blind to the
efﬁciency gain from the original stratiﬁcation, meaning that standard errors will tend to be
overestimated.
With the ITC 6E data, we have used the stratum collapsing technique, where possible merg-
ing a single-PSU stratum with another which is within the same NUTS region and has the
same level of urbanization. The variable name for the collapsed strata or “variance strata”
is “VARSTRAT”. The variable name for PSU is “VARPSU”.
4.3.2
Bootstrap weights
In another approach to accounting for the complex sampling design, we have provided a set
of bootstrap weights, based on the Rao and Wu (1988) bootstrap technique, and constructed
as follows.
For b = 1,...,6000, we produced a b-th “column” of initial bootstrap weights, as follows.
Within each variance stratum h as deﬁned in Section 3.1, if there are nh sampled PSUs,
we selected nh PSUs by simple random sampling with replacement. For each respondent
(h,i, j) in sampled PSU (h,i), that person’s bootstrap weight whi jb is the main (inﬂation or
analytic) weight whi j times [1 −λ1h + (number of times PSU (h,i) has been “resampled”) ×
λ1h], where λ1h =
p
nh/nh −1. The bootstrap weight whi jb will be 0 if (h,i) was not resam-
pled, 1 if (h,i) was resampled once, a higher number if (h,i) was resampled twice, and so
on.
The columns of initial bootstrap weights were then averaged, 12 at a time, to produce 500
averaged bootstrap weight variables. In the data set, the averaged analytic bootstrap weights
are named “RSBSW001” to “RSBSW500”.
Because of the ﬁne stratiﬁcation of the survey design, calibration of each of the initial 6000
bootstrap weight columns with the same method as for the main weights was not feasible.
At the same time, it was found that calibration of the averaged bootstrap weights led to
underestimation of standard errors as compared with the output of linearization methods.
Thus neither the original 6000, nor the 500 averaged bootstrap weights which are provided
with the data, have been calibrated.
The averaged bootstrap weights can be used with complex survey software to produce stan-
dard errors for various parameter estimates. Typically a BRR (balanced repeated replica-
tion) option is used, because the formula for producing standard errors with BRR is eas-
ily translated into the formula for producing standard errors in bootstrapping. A useful
document is “Weighted estimation and bootstrap variance estimation for analyzing sur-
vey data: How to implement in selected software”, by Gagné, Roberts and Keown, at http:
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 37

REFERENCES
//www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/12-002-x/2014001/article/11901-eng.htm. The paper by Phillips
(2004) explaining the Fay adjustment is available at http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/olc-cel/olc.
action?ObjId=12-002-X20040027032&ObjType=47&lang=en&limit=0.
References
Binson, D. & Catania, J. A. (2000), Random selection in a national telephone survey: a com-
parison of the Kish, next-birthday and last-birthday methods. Journal of Ofﬁcial Statis-
tics, 16, 53-60.
Levy, P. S. & Lemeshow, S. (2008), Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications, 4 edn,
John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Little, R. J. A. & Rubin, D. B. (2002), Statistical Analysis with Missing Data, 2 edn, John Wiley
& Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Phillips, O. (2004), Using bootstrap weights with WesVar and SUDAAN. Research Data Cen-
tres, Information and Technical Bulletin, 1(2), 6-15.
Rao, J. N. K. & Wu, C. F. J. (1988), Resampling inference with complex survey data. Journal of
the American Statistical Association, 83, 231-241.
38 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Appendices
A
Sample size tables
A detailed set of sample size tables are available upon request that depict the total number
of respondents sampled in each country. Sample sizes in these tables are broken down by
sampling region crossed with degree of urbanization crossed with sex and age group.
B
Benchmark/calibration ﬁgures
The following tables show (a) the population estimates as of 2015-01-01 and (b) the esti-
mated numbers of smokers in each country for region crossed with urbanization crossed
with sex and age group.
Projections from census data for January 1, 2015, found at the Eurostat website were used
to estimate the population numbers the number of people by region, urbanization, sex and
age group. Speciﬁcally, there are tables for:
(a) Population for each region (NUTS2), age (18+, by single year age category) and sex
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/population-demography-migration-projections/
population-data/database
(b) Number of households by region (NUTS2) by degree of urbanization
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/degree-of-urbanisation/data/database
– the number of households table can be found under the “Labour market” category.
Using (b), and making the assumption that the population of individuals follows the distri-
bution of households by urban/intermediate/rural areas, it was possible to multiply total
population estimates for (a) by the proportion of the population in each urban category to
obtain population estimates within the 4-way table needed for calibration (region × urban-
ization × sex × age).
Germany
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 39

APPENDICES
Table 7. Total population by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Schleswig-Holstein
89,810
87,488
121,525
88,173
88,563
142,914
Hamburg
274,315
202,824
235,560
282,872
196,011
289,967
Niedersachsen
265,469
244,947
333,752
253,669
243,232
392,266
Bremen
97,618
73,888
100,530
92,860
70,766
124,587
Nordrhein-Westfalen
1,177,584
1,041,964
1,375,304
1,150,138
1,037,419
1,662,517
Hessen
270,246
237,373
308,814
264,987
233,977
362,859
Rheinland-Pfalz
115,782
104,617
145,384
111,442
104,290
169,752
Baden-Württemberg
417,631
349,509
450,890
398,497
343,131
531,690
Bayern
537,151
458,523
586,202
517,025
449,289
691,057
Saarland
25,204
22,735
34,895
23,762
23,029
41,664
Berlin
542,185
391,150
486,701
542,693
373,367
594,783
Brandenburg
48,060
51,624
76,003
44,112
50,030
89,600
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
68,580
63,800
98,515
61,356
60,730
118,671
Sachsen
214,326
182,593
296,109
192,249
170,417
369,170
Sachsen-Anhalt
73,862
71,255
112,825
64,832
67,739
139,879
Thüringen
64,046
59,214
93,642
56,682
55,864
113,583
Intermediate
Schleswig-Holstein
165,733
161,447
224,258
162,711
163,431
263,728
Hamburg
0
0
0
0
0
0
Niedersachsen
413,021
381,092
519,257
394,663
378,424
610,294
Bremen
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nordrhein-Westfalen
953,646
843,816
1,113,766
931,419
840,136
1,346,360
Hessen
409,976
360,106
468,485
401,998
354,955
550,474
Rheinland-Pfalz
239,400
216,313
300,606
230,426
215,637
350,992
Baden-Württemberg
799,584
669,159
863,260
762,950
656,948
1,017,957
Bayern
708,877
605,112
773,609
682,316
592,926
911,986
Saarland
80,055
72,214
110,838
75,474
73,147
132,336
Berlin
0
0
0
0
0
0
Brandenburg
133,172
143,047
210,603
122,233
138,631
248,278
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
47,367
44,066
68,044
42,378
41,946
81,965
Sachsen
203,110
173,037
280,613
182,188
161,498
349,850
Sachsen-Anhalt
92,217
88,962
140,863
80,943
84,573
174,641
Thüringen
105,514
97,552
154,272
93,381
92,033
187,123
Rural
Schleswig-Holstein
88,178
85,898
119,316
86,570
86,953
140,316
Hamburg
0
0
0
0
0
0
Niedersachsen
319,397
294,707
401,552
305,201
292,643
471,953
Bremen
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nordrhein-Westfalen
197,041
174,348
230,125
192,449
173,588
278,183
Hessen
139,175
122,246
159,037
136,466
120,497
186,870
Rheinland-Pfalz
163,695
147,909
205,546
157,559
147,447
239,998
Baden-Württemberg
273,799
229,138
295,603
261,255
224,957
348,576
Bayern
512,235
437,254
559,010
493,042
428,449
659,002
Continued on next page
40 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 7. (Continued)
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Saarland
19,433
17,529
26,905
18,321
17,756
32,124
Berlin
0
0
0
0
0
0
Brandenburg
99,019
106,361
156,591
90,885
103,078
184,604
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
83,169
77,373
119,473
74,409
73,649
143,916
Sachsen
103,424
88,111
142,889
92,771
82,236
178,145
Sachsen-Anhalt
102,924
99,292
157,218
90,342
94,393
194,918
Thüringen
97,939
90,549
143,197
86,677
85,426
173,689
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 41

APPENDICES
Table 8. Total smokers by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Schleswig-Holstein
70,941
74,898
84,788
60,637
63,172
76,245
Hamburg
104,925
100,378
64,873
75,301
56,980
45,960
Niedersachsen
72,924
91,782
62,946
46,041
48,744
40,521
Bremen
26,816
27,686
18,960
16,854
14,182
12,870
Nordrhein-Westfalen
469,974
533,902
398,288
322,154
316,828
279,469
Hessen
96,235
110,758
78,253
64,816
62,682
52,252
Rheinland-Pfalz
43,268
50,802
38,963
28,852
29,524
26,074
Baden-Württemberg
127,586
143,404
95,859
81,652
77,376
62,739
Bayern
187,681
210,645
145,319
123,724
117,804
97,024
Saarland
11,370
12,852
11,700
7,723
8,113
8,333
Berlin
239,863
217,714
159,346
172,142
128,550
115,626
Brandenburg
14,951
21,512
13,985
9,224
11,512
10,815
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
32,651
37,629
35,268
21,315
22,804
25,692
Sachsen
60,333
69,860
57,386
35,874
35,089
39,317
Sachsen-Anhalt
38,076
44,698
44,566
24,889
27,990
34,186
Thüringen
26,893
31,608
28,795
16,874
18,094
20,490
Intermediate
Schleswig-Holstein
124,913
133,807
146,328
104,444
109,417
127,117
Hamburg
0
0
0
0
0
0
Niedersachsen
97,308
124,922
82,614
60,344
64,105
52,302
Bremen
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nordrhein-Westfalen
334,634
388,999
277,439
224,006
221,376
190,106
Hessen
127,257
149,768
101,380
83,857
81,462
66,277
Rheinland-Pfalz
78,236
93,988
69,019
51,016
52,443
45,173
Baden-Württemberg
210,770
241,968
155,473
132,219
125,806
99,963
Bayern
215,640
247,430
163,618
139,056
133,053
106,976
Saarland
32,086
37,132
32,265
21,246
22,449
22,378
Berlin
0
0
0
0
0
0
Brandenburg
35,783
52,598
38,751
21,647
27,116
24,952
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
20,136
23,760
21,243
12,807
13,783
15,049
Sachsen
49,112
58,019
45,936
28,676
28,133
30,927
Sachsen-Anhalt
42,789
51,420
48,879
27,237
30,810
36,395
Thüringen
39,209
47,059
40,959
23,952
25,815
28,424
Rural
Schleswig-Holstein
66,521
71,244
77,973
55,647
58,285
67,773
Hamburg
0
0
0
0
0
0
Niedersachsen
75,474
96,870
64,088
46,818
49,749
40,588
Bremen
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nordrhein-Westfalen
69,319
80,549
57,508
46,419
45,879
39,419
Hessen
43,311
50,964
34,527
28,562
27,738
22,574
Rheinland-Pfalz
53,643
64,400
47,337
34,994
35,962
30,984
Baden-Württemberg
72,392
83,063
53,415
45,432
43,214
34,335
Bayern
156,232
179,187
118,622
100,827
96,444
77,630
Continued on next page
42 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 8. (Continued)
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Saarland
7,808
9,031
7,854
5,172
5,464
5,448
Berlin
0
0
0
0
0
0
Brandenburg
26,686
39,205
28,907
16,150
20,224
18,627
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
35,438
41,797
37,395
22,553
24,267
26,509
Sachsen
25,080
29,623
23,462
14,649
14,375
15,801
Sachsen-Anhalt
47,860
57,490
54,696
30,481
34,472
40,757
Thüringen
36,394
43,771
38,133
22,302
24,030
26,470
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 43

APPENDICES
Greece
Table 9. Total population by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Attica
388,620
294,972
383,376
391,428
332,028
492,459
Crete
35,095
25,632
33,455
35,762
25,951
38,171
Eastern Macedonia & Thrace
8,468
5,743
9,028
7,477
6,016
10,782
Central Macedonia
100,134
80,723
114,028
102,259
85,395
138,160
Western Macedonia
0
0
0
0
0
0
Epirus
9,536
7,980
14,266
10,123
7,910
15,892
Thessaly
43,794
35,618
57,173
43,497
36,106
65,792
Western Greece
31,676
23,520
34,974
30,516
23,489
39,965
Central Greece
6,870
5,568
8,244
6,143
5,255
9,420
Peloponnese
9,437
7,952
13,010
8,738
7,937
14,038
Intermediate
Attica
138,647
105,236
136,776
139,649
118,457
175,693
Crete
17,383
12,696
16,571
17,714
12,854
18,907
Eastern Macedonia & Thrace
41,523
28,160
44,269
36,663
29,497
52,867
Central Macedonia
86,363
69,622
98,347
88,196
73,651
119,160
Western Macedonia
17,623
15,868
24,119
17,586
15,843
26,518
Epirus
8,626
7,219
12,906
9,157
7,156
14,376
Thessaly
21,626
17,589
28,233
21,479
17,830
32,489
Western Greece
23,500
17,450
25,947
22,640
17,426
29,650
Central Greece
28,319
22,954
33,985
25,324
21,664
38,832
Peloponnese
23,304
19,635
32,125
21,578
19,598
34,663
Rural
Attica
13,694
10,394
13,509
13,793
11,700
17,353
Crete
39,104
28,559
37,277
39,847
28,915
42,531
Eastern Macedonia & Thrace
38,961
26,422
41,537
34,401
27,677
49,605
Central Macedonia
64,705
52,161
73,683
66,077
55,180
89,276
Western Macedonia
16,563
14,913
22,668
16,528
14,890
24,922
Epirus
23,151
19,373
34,634
24,574
19,204
38,581
Thessaly
28,666
23,314
37,423
28,471
23,633
43,065
Western Greece
39,925
29,645
44,082
38,463
29,605
50,372
Central Greece
41,112
33,323
49,337
36,763
31,450
56,374
Peloponnese
42,110
35,481
58,050
38,991
35,414
62,637
44 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 10. Total smokers by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Attica
188,986
166,718
123,064
162,951
167,840
110,065
Crete
17,537
14,820
11,130
15,353
13,463
8,890
Eastern Macedonia & Thrace
3,836
3,055
2,641
2,872
2,840
2,168
Central Macedonia
50,578
47,110
38,496
44,442
44,773
32,730
Western Macedonia
0
0
0
0
0
0
Epirus
6,055
5,625
6,631
5,741
5,162
5,499
Thessaly
20,255
19,287
17,175
17,103
17,389
13,639
Western Greece
15,132
13,091
10,961
12,444
11,669
8,696
Central Greece
3,784
3,493
3,130
2,949
2,994
2,558
Peloponnese
3,166
3,255
2,619
2,407
2,800
1,868
Intermediate
Attica
62,377
55,659
39,651
53,220
55,544
34,980
Crete
8,050
6,883
4,988
6,976
6,198
3,929
Eastern Macedonia & Thrace
17,315
13,950
11,647
12,836
12,852
9,442
Central Macedonia
40,461
38,125
30,055
35,190
35,920
25,190
Western Macedonia
15,150
14,183
18,176
14,454
13,763
17,255
Epirus
5,179
4,862
5,532
4,861
4,427
4,508
Thessaly
9,219
8,882
7,640
7,707
7,936
5,988
Western Greece
10,371
9,077
7,338
8,445
8,021
5,740
Central Greece
14,564
13,600
11,752
11,236
11,556
9,459
Peloponnese
7,075
7,351
5,741
5,334
6,273
4,056
Rural
Attica
5,269
4,802
3,215
4,418
4,717
2,773
Crete
15,544
13,574
9,237
13,229
12,029
7,107
Eastern Macedonia & Thrace
13,777
11,332
8,910
10,038
10,279
7,074
Central Macedonia
26,063
25,079
18,561
22,255
23,253
15,195
Western Macedonia
13,651
12,907
15,881
12,880
12,433
14,647
Epirus
12,381
11,858
12,628
11,402
10,635
9,992
Thessaly
10,389
10,219
8,270
8,536
8,988
6,348
Western Greece
15,040
13,441
10,214
12,027
11,688
7,818
Central Greece
18,402
17,548
14,209
13,930
14,675
11,140
Peloponnese
10,532
11,145
8,284
7,829
9,378
5,769
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 45

APPENDICES
Hungary
Table 11. Total population by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Central Hungary
288,755
185,594
233,102
291,121
190,681
342,176
Central Transdanubia
16,706
11,334
14,699
15,562
11,186
20,340
Western Transdanubia
35,954
25,120
32,804
34,009
24,659
45,096
Southern Transdanubia
23,303
16,588
23,120
22,213
16,857
32,528
Northern Hungary
27,555
18,736
24,429
25,556
18,919
36,076
Northern Great Plain
55,455
36,449
45,098
52,183
36,630
63,669
Southern Great Plain
46,985
32,212
44,382
44,331
32,538
62,914
Intermediate
Central Hungary
144,860
93,107
116,941
146,047
95,659
171,660
Central Transdanubia
71,697
48,641
63,084
66,789
48,010
87,296
Western Transdanubia
53,580
37,434
48,886
50,681
36,748
67,204
Southern Transdanubia
42,802
30,469
42,465
40,800
30,962
59,746
Northern Hungary
63,710
43,319
56,481
59,088
43,742
83,411
Northern Great Plain
77,189
50,734
62,773
72,634
50,985
88,622
Southern Great Plain
67,112
46,011
63,394
63,321
46,476
89,864
Rural
Central Hungary
31,718
20,387
25,605
31,978
20,945
37,586
Central Transdanubia
75,455
51,191
66,390
70,289
50,526
91,872
Western Transdanubia
59,788
41,772
54,550
56,553
41,006
74,991
Southern Transdanubia
64,871
46,179
64,361
61,837
46,926
90,552
Northern Hungary
81,714
55,560
72,443
75,785
56,103
106,982
Northern Great Plain
97,233
63,909
79,074
91,496
64,225
111,635
Southern Great Plain
74,643
51,174
70,508
70,427
51,692
99,949
46 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 12. Total smokers by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Central Hungary
114,636
65,329
49,627
63,726
57,166
36,100
Central Transdanubia
9,324
5,783
5,021
5,440
5,044
3,753
Western Transdanubia
16,082
10,056
8,185
8,713
8,502
5,709
Southern Transdanubia
10,158
6,458
5,570
5,498
5,637
3,955
Northern Hungary
13,530
8,302
6,933
7,437
7,291
5,314
Northern Great Plain
25,204
14,846
11,500
13,662
12,868
8,271
Southern Great Plain
18,465
11,213
9,325
9,575
9,638
6,537
Intermediate
Central Hungary
63,811
36,656
28,569
36,658
32,381
21,217
Central Transdanubia
43,133
26,981
24,149
26,128
23,784
18,585
Western Transdanubia
26,351
16,617
13,903
14,784
14,188
9,926
Southern Transdanubia
20,554
13,175
11,682
11,514
11,617
8,484
Northern Hungary
34,117
21,118
18,153
19,452
18,743
14,280
Northern Great Plain
38,517
22,881
18,223
21,623
20,037
13,417
Southern Great Plain
29,281
17,930
15,291
15,691
15,560
10,945
Rural
Central Hungary
13,027
7,443
5,700
7,317
6,531
4,172
Central Transdanubia
43,168
26,845
23,535
25,487
23,495
17,750
Western Transdanubia
27,586
17,298
14,199
15,111
14,668
9,974
Southern Transdanubia
29,185
18,606
16,187
15,966
16,288
11,573
Northern Hungary
41,282
25,402
21,407
22,955
22,385
16,539
Northern Great Plain
45,563
26,912
21,026
24,969
23,404
15,227
Southern Great Plain
30,357
18,484
15,491
15,902
15,931
10,924
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 47

APPENDICES
Poland
Table 13. Total population by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Łódzkie
191,259
114,296
162,808
182,873
116,981
230,158
Mazowieckie
424,749
242,973
330,065
422,853
246,532
452,401
Malopolskie
216,365
123,945
155,542
211,271
123,750
204,558
´Sl ˛askie
452,539
279,143
382,154
436,539
281,496
504,044
Lubelskie
107,420
61,659
81,845
100,674
60,948
111,518
Podkarpackie
68,477
39,402
48,399
64,907
38,556
62,801
´Swi˛etokrzyskie
50,053
29,532
42,161
46,624
28,740
54,878
Podlaskie
85,219
51,125
64,784
79,722
50,298
85,952
Wielkopolskie
204,836
114,709
146,755
197,924
115,154
192,484
Zachodniopomorskie
100,956
58,876
82,373
96,300
57,989
106,584
Lubuskie
43,270
24,639
33,217
41,344
24,272
43,276
Dolno´sl ˛askie
215,571
122,836
176,115
208,635
122,628
237,598
Opolskie
21,056
13,344
17,541
20,251
13,134
23,160
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
149,704
87,405
115,224
144,422
88,344
152,026
Warmi´nsko-Mazurskie
69,743
40,544
50,286
65,706
39,743
65,737
Pomorskie
175,132
99,814
130,602
170,870
99,044
167,525
Intermediate
Łódzkie
83,269
49,761
70,882
79,618
50,930
100,205
Mazowieckie
216,245
123,700
168,040
215,279
125,512
230,322
Malopolskie
182,378
104,476
131,110
178,084
104,312
172,426
´Sl ˛askie
193,186
119,164
163,139
186,356
120,169
215,173
Lubelskie
78,329
44,961
59,680
73,410
44,442
81,317
Podkarpackie
136,577
78,586
96,530
129,457
76,899
125,255
´Swi˛etokrzyskie
42,249
24,927
35,587
39,354
24,259
46,321
Podlaskie
32,612
19,565
24,792
30,508
19,248
32,892
Wielkopolskie
130,247
72,939
93,316
125,852
73,222
122,394
Zachodniopomorskie
42,322
24,681
34,532
40,370
24,310
44,681
Lubuskie
37,758
21,500
28,985
36,077
21,180
37,763
Dolno´sl ˛askie
95,569
54,457
78,077
92,494
54,365
105,335
Opolskie
36,477
23,118
30,388
35,081
22,754
40,121
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
43,488
25,391
33,472
41,954
25,663
44,163
Warmi´nsko-Mazurskie
50,802
29,533
36,630
47,862
28,950
47,884
Pomorskie
88,601
50,497
66,072
86,444
50,107
84,752
Rural
Łódzkie
121,996
72,905
103,849
116,647
74,617
146,808
Mazowieckie
225,751
129,139
175,427
224,744
131,030
240,448
Malopolskie
163,112
93,440
117,260
159,272
93,292
154,212
´Sl ˛askie
84,623
52,198
71,461
81,631
52,638
94,254
Lubelskie
171,083
98,202
130,350
160,339
97,068
177,609
Podkarpackie
153,588
88,375
108,553
145,581
86,477
140,856
´Swi˛etokrzyskie
113,230
66,806
95,376
105,472
65,015
124,145
Continued on next page
48 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 13. (Continued)
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Podlaskie
77,339
46,398
58,794
72,350
45,647
78,005
Wielkopolskie
251,793
141,005
180,398
243,296
141,552
236,610
Zachodniopomorskie
136,157
79,405
111,095
129,878
78,208
143,748
Lubuskie
88,469
50,376
67,915
84,531
49,627
88,481
Dolno´sl ˛askie
163,354
93,082
133,456
158,098
92,924
180,046
Opolskie
97,286
61,656
81,047
93,564
60,685
107,006
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
149,283
87,159
114,900
144,015
88,095
151,598
Warmi´nsko-Mazurskie
121,430
70,592
87,555
114,401
69,198
114,456
Pomorskie
115,945
66,081
86,464
113,123
65,571
110,909
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 49

APPENDICES
Table 14. Total smokers by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Łódzkie
60,859
54,405
45,684
54,332
30,614
45,318
Mazowieckie
148,322
124,135
102,188
138,315
71,371
99,483
Malopolskie
36,717
24,554
22,694
33,022
16,632
19,842
´Sl ˛askie
152,596
138,902
113,997
137,728
78,453
106,303
Lubelskie
35,814
30,423
24,128
31,400
30,072
23,207
Podkarpackie
24,255
20,347
15,212
21,549
11,335
14,049
´Swi˛etokrzyskie
13,549
12,389
9,984
11,735
6,320
8,956
Podlaskie
34,582
29,177
23,536
30,470
17,177
22,691
Wielkopolskie
60,365
51,458
37,980
54,350
27,741
34,647
Zachodniopomorskie
27,420
24,763
19,572
24,316
12,798
17,458
Lubuskie
27,213
18,908
19,468
25,038
13,658
20,383
Dolno´sl ˛askie
59,692
52,463
42,708
53,744
27,628
39,798
Opolskie
4,763
4,840
3,443
4,241
2,386
3,083
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
49,462
42,820
33,645
44,612
24,083
31,302
Warmi´nsko-Mazurskie
13,126
12,605
8,161
11,400
5,950
7,132
Pomorskie
29,545
28,277
18,937
26,553
13,232
16,149
Intermediate
Łódzkie
27,021
24,049
20,308
24,148
13,614
20,191
Mazowieckie
76,962
64,101
53,084
71,817
37,101
51,822
Malopolskie
31,716
30,371
19,614
28,529
14,374
17,174
´Sl ˛askie
66,417
60,166
49,676
59,988
34,200
46,434
Lubelskie
26,624
22,512
17,958
23,359
12,497
17,321
Podkarpackie
49,291
41,155
30,948
43,821
23,077
28,658
´Swi˛etokrzyskie
11,682
10,634
8,616
10,122
5,458
7,745
Podlaskie
13,462
11,305
9,176
11,871
6,700
8,874
Wielkopolskie
39,178
33,246
24,682
35,301
18,035
22,569
Zachodniopomorskie
11,740
10,556
8,388
10,419
5,487
7,497
Lubuskie
23,999
16,609
17,194
22,097
12,070
18,058
Dolno´sl ˛askie
27,027
23,651
19,355
24,344
12,531
18,075
Opolskie
8,437
8,540
6,108
7,518
4,232
5,477
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
14,651
12,624
9,975
13,224
7,145
9,305
Warmi´nsko-Mazurskie
9,790
9,368
6,092
8,510
4,441
5,334
Pomorskie
15,319
14,604
9,825
13,762
6,865
8,382
Rural
Łódzkie
42,455
37,152
32,037
38,027
21,520
32,151
Mazowieckie
85,853
70,303
59,470
80,324
41,654
58,621
Malopolskie
30,910
29,228
19,172
27,841
14,068
16,871
´Sl ˛askie
31,133
27,728
23,382
28,179
16,134
22,074
Lubelskie
62,257
51,752
42,168
54,740
29,402
41,045
Podkarpackie
59,208
48,589
37,342
52,759
27,906
34,918
´Swi˛etokrzyskie
33,754
30,230
24,979
29,300
15,851
22,644
Podlaskie
33,921
27,992
23,224
29,982
16,999
22,699
Wielkopolskie
81,430
67,964
51,486
73,524
37,695
47,488
Continued on next page
50 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 14. (Continued)
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Zachodniopomorskie
40,711
36,018
29,196
36,197
19,137
26,320
Lubuskie
58,363
39,822
41,992
53,863
29,553
44,639
Dolno´sl ˛askie
49,758
42,846
35,766
44,916
23,203
33,687
Opolskie
24,380
24,311
17,701
21,754
12,289
15,987
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
53,861
45,628
36,825
48,720
26,428
34,670
Warmi´nsko-Mazurskie
25,452
24,030
15,882
22,159
11,598
13,998
Pomorskie
21,844
20,571
14,050
19,661
9,829
12,056
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 51

APPENDICES
Romania
Table 15. Total population by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
North-West
118,494
78,468
93,874
112,803
76,075
123,288
Central
105,047
71,537
91,367
98,015
69,435
116,693
North-East
136,912
95,862
119,840
124,116
87,857
152,514
South-East
126,652
96,245
124,266
116,364
91,508
159,515
South
92,679
71,780
89,519
84,251
67,073
118,306
Bucharest
331,228
191,549
227,613
345,974
208,623
325,318
South-West
83,607
65,845
82,889
77,011
62,128
106,055
West
84,314
58,920
71,332
79,981
57,447
94,264
Intermediate
North-West
100,605
66,622
79,702
95,773
64,590
104,675
Central
104,799
71,368
91,151
97,784
69,272
116,418
North-East
110,249
77,194
96,502
99,945
70,747
122,813
South-East
85,783
65,188
84,167
78,815
61,980
108,042
South
122,932
95,211
118,740
111,752
88,967
156,925
Bucharest
44,569
25,774
30,627
46,553
28,072
43,774
South-West
35,147
27,680
34,845
32,374
26,118
44,583
West
87,578
61,201
74,093
83,077
59,670
97,913
Rural
North-West
192,525
127,493
152,524
183,279
123,604
200,314
Central
150,261
102,328
130,693
140,204
99,322
166,921
North-East
240,326
168,270
210,358
217,865
154,217
267,713
South-East
145,494
110,563
142,753
133,676
105,122
183,246
South
227,014
175,824
219,274
206,369
164,293
289,788
Bucharest
13,727
7,938
9,433
14,338
8,646
13,482
South-West
171,627
135,166
170,153
158,086
127,535
217,706
West
111,413
77,857
94,259
105,688
75,911
124,562
52 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 16. Total smokers by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
North-West
52,232
29,504
11,058
35,070
18,722
10,356
Central
55,234
32,821
14,454
38,059
21,858
13,326
North-East
56,202
33,302
12,655
35,385
19,671
11,423
South-East
58,133
37,863
15,620
38,039
23,801
14,324
South
60,149
42,042
21,359
43,330
29,096
20,940
Bucharest
175,816
88,821
36,623
136,002
66,572
37,834
South-West
62,981
46,098
28,265
48,994
34,705
27,797
West
55,082
34,775
17,262
41,502
25,185
16,939
Intermediate
North-West
30,222
16,462
5,404
18,896
9,753
4,983
Central
39,467
22,545
8,468
25,130
13,868
7,637
North-East
30,329
17,361
5,829
17,840
9,615
5,195
South-East
27,116
17,021
6,111
16,488
9,960
5,510
South
61,700
41,426
17,324
40,879
26,201
16,461
Bucharest
16,994
8,255
2,897
12,141
5,710
2,928
South-West
21,953
15,498
7,666
15,795
10,659
7,227
West
44,367
26,910
10,981
30,755
17,806
10,438
Rural
North-West
59,028
32,205
10,631
37,022
19,134
9,795
Central
57,625
32,980
12,468
36,818
20,351
11,267
North-East
67,532
38,702
13,063
39,826
21,482
11,646
South-East
46,922
29,498
10,649
28,620
17,314
9,602
South
115,596
77,767
32,781
76,893
49,386
31,210
Bucharest
5,329
2,593
916
3,821
1,800
926
South-West
108,365
76,639
38,284
78,284
52,953
36,161
West
57,255
34,794
14,318
39,844
23,122
13,640
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 53

APPENDICES
Spain
Table 17. Total population by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Galicia
139,534
121,795
176,058
136,440
123,324
218,339
Asturias
72,644
69,132
100,039
70,868
70,372
128,027
Cantabria
24,397
21,800
27,802
23,570
21,561
33,951
Basque Country
88,940
85,404
110,728
87,237
85,114
136,908
Rioja
21,075
18,677
23,520
20,680
17,950
27,082
Aragon
94,717
82,984
105,097
89,549
78,381
123,905
Madrid
750,580
621,299
643,682
765,922
646,188
836,540
Castile-Leon
123,946
114,994
167,830
117,132
110,681
193,523
Castile-La Mancha
77,033
61,481
70,026
71,545
57,364
79,358
Extremadura
37,913
31,315
38,638
35,897
30,018
44,588
Cataluna
622,139
528,437
603,330
616,187
514,711
738,443
Valencia
250,809
212,258
245,849
241,774
205,700
291,282
Baleares
67,560
53,211
52,684
65,876
50,186
60,275
Andalucia
514,380
403,975
430,155
497,197
399,287
509,349
Murcia
106,587
81,749
80,138
100,255
76,955
93,640
Intermediate
Galicia
85,953
75,026
108,452
84,048
75,968
134,497
Asturias
22,800
21,698
31,399
22,243
22,087
40,183
Cantabria
36,155
32,306
41,202
34,929
31,953
50,314
Basque Country
63,163
60,652
78,637
61,954
60,446
97,230
Rioja
10,961
9,714
12,233
10,756
9,336
14,086
Aragon
32,202
28,213
35,731
30,445
26,648
42,125
Madrid
112,184
92,861
96,207
114,477
96,581
125,032
Castile-Leon
65,343
60,624
88,479
61,751
58,350
102,023
Castile-La Mancha
31,445
25,097
28,585
29,205
23,416
32,394
Extremadura
12,674
10,468
12,916
12,000
10,035
14,905
Cataluna
295,469
250,967
286,536
292,642
244,449
350,704
Valencia
322,744
273,137
316,362
311,118
264,697
374,826
Baleares
37,489
29,527
29,235
36,555
27,848
33,446
Andalucia
273,472
214,775
228,694
264,337
212,283
270,797
Murcia
38,747
29,718
29,132
36,445
27,975
34,041
Rural
Galicia
131,903
115,134
166,430
128,978
116,579
206,398
Asturias
34,172
32,520
47,059
33,337
33,103
60,225
Cantabria
17,752
15,862
20,230
17,150
15,688
24,704
Basque Country
117,805
113,122
146,665
115,550
112,738
181,342
Rioja
10,146
8,992
11,323
9,956
8,642
13,038
Aragon
54,760
47,977
60,761
51,772
45,315
71,635
Madrid
51,974
43,022
44,572
53,036
44,745
57,926
Castile-Leon
127,454
118,250
172,581
120,448
113,814
199,001
Castile-La Mancha
202,103
161,300
183,719
187,706
150,499
208,203
Continued on next page
54 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 17. (Continued)
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Extremadura
106,404
87,886
108,437
100,746
84,247
125,137
Cataluna
114,137
96,946
110,686
113,045
94,428
135,474
Valencia
127,367
107,790
124,848
122,779
104,459
147,920
Baleares
72,665
57,231
56,665
70,854
53,978
64,829
Andalucia
474,169
372,395
396,528
458,329
368,074
469,531
Murcia
83,518
64,056
62,794
78,556
60,300
73,373
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 55

APPENDICES
Table 18. Total smokers by degree of urbanization and age-sex group.
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Urban
Galicia
61,269
63,589
43,979
55,272
42,793
30,982
Asturias
38,814
42,558
32,813
35,399
30,809
24,978
Cantabria
11,874
12,401
8,032
10,661
8,461
5,721
Basque Country
30,008
35,477
19,710
26,773
21,857
13,294
Rioja
8,525
9,090
5,273
7,681
5,663
3,399
Aragon
38,313
40,388
23,563
33,258
24,729
15,550
Madrid
297,155
296,795
140,323
278,030
198,897
101,723
Castile-Leon
56,358
61,855
43,938
49,242
40,000
28,990
Castile-La Mancha
36,668
34,368
19,516
31,580
21,879
12,777
Extremadura
17,713
17,233
10,498
15,533
11,200
6,969
Cataluna
189,068
200,066
94,481
169,575
117,663
62,325
Valencia
103,985
105,513
56,914
92,164
66,770
37,896
Baleares
20,106
19,773
8,045
17,740
11,207
4,949
Andalucia
226,224
211,239
107,711
201,763
138,792
72,480
Murcia
33,362
31,776
13,006
28,452
18,169
8,222
Intermediate
Galicia
36,728
38,278
26,126
33,081
25,540
18,318
Asturias
11,911
13,110
9,969
10,843
9,409
7,542
Cantabria
17,168
18,001
11,504
15,388
12,177
8,148
Basque Country
20,635
24,491
13,455
18,388
14,979
9,042
Rioja
4,308
4,611
2,641
3,875
2,850
1,695
Aragon
12,655
13,393
7,714
10,969
8,136
5,068
Madrid
43,135
43,245
20,194
40,296
28,752
14,579
Castile-Leon
28,940
31,882
22,359
25,244
20,446
14,671
Castile-La Mancha
14,590
13,733
7,695
12,546
8,666
5,008
Extremadura
5,770
5,636
3,388
5,052
3,632
2,237
Cataluna
86,809
92,205
43,095
77,755
53,828
28,337
Valencia
130,066
132,499
70,580
115,083
83,168
46,778
Baleares
10,786
10,642
4,286
9,501
5,990
2,629
Andalucia
117,073
109,729
55,230
104,228
71,497
36,964
Murcia
11,733
11,213
4,542
9,990
6,367
2,859
Rural
Galicia
51,706
54,539
35,816
46,342
35,487
24,747
Asturias
16,604
18,497
13,492
15,038
12,933
10,021
Cantabria
7,792
8,268
5,077
6,949
5,452
3,536
Basque Country
34,811
41,765
22,205
30,887
24,971
14,761
Rioja
3,640
3,943
2,176
3,259
2,378
1,378
Aragon
19,648
21,038
11,678
16,950
12,471
7,572
Madrid
18,217
18,482
8,322
16,945
11,996
5,926
Castile-Leon
51,899
57,883
39,021
45,048
36,181
25,213
Castile-La Mancha
86,500
82,392
44,350
73,994
50,688
28,420
Extremadura
44,626
44,119
25,483
38,868
27,709
16,568
Cataluna
30,189
32,399
14,688
26,927
18,527
9,564
Continued on next page
56 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 18. (Continued)
Men
Women
Region
18–39
40–54
≥55
18–39
40–54
≥55
Valencia
46,922
48,376
24,820
41,327
29,625
16,227
Baleares
18,798
18,743
7,321
16,495
10,337
4,447
Andalucia
186,206
176,664
85,531
164,998
112,263
56,438
Murcia
22,784
22,016
8,640
19,325
12,235
5,386
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 57

APPENDICES
C
Summary statistics of the weights
The following tables show the means, standard deviations and coefﬁcients of variation for
the weights in the regions crossed with urbanization (following merging as indicated in Ap-
pendix A).
58 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 19. Germany Wave 1 inﬂation weights: summary statistics.
Region
N
Sum
Mean
SD
CV
Baden-Württemberg
Urban
37
445,212
12032.76
4447.40
36.96
Intermediate
65
1,109,603
17070.82
6026.89
35.31
Rural
29
331,851
11443.14
6248.86
54.61
Bayern
Urban
50
882,197
17643.94
12006.08
68.05
Intermediate
70
1,005,773
14368.19
6577.90
45.78
Rural
50
728,942
14578.84
4399.03
30.17
Berlin
Urban
30
1,033,241
34441.37
13104.80
38.05
Former East Germany
Urban
51
912,376
17889.73
5496.05
30.72
Intermediate
58
991,376
17092.69
7876.08
46.08
Rural
45
917,604
20391.20
11880.10
58.26
Hamberg/Bremen/
Urban
96
1,359,424
14160.67
4740.62
33.48
Schleswig-Holstein/
Intermediate
62
1,227,621
19800.34
8780.17
44.34
Niedersachsen
Rural
40
771,030
19275.75
9194.27
47.70
Urban areas of Hessen... ∗
Urban
114
3,003,094
26342.93
10706.42
40.64
Intermediate areas of Hessen... †
Intermediate
78
1,167,432
14967.08
7122.50
47.59
Rest of Nordrhien-Westfalen
Intermediate
78
1,636,560
20981.54
8773.90
41.82
Rural ares of Hessen... ‡
Rural
50
814,089
16281.78
5088.18
31.25
∗Urban areas of Hessen/Nordrhein-Westfalen/Rheinland-Pfalz
†Intermediate areas of Hessen/Rheinland-Pfalz/Saarland
‡Rural ares of Hessen/Nordrhein-Westfalen/Rheinland-Pfalz
Table 20. Greece Wave 1 inﬂation weights: summary statistics.
Region
N
Sum
Mean
SD
CV
Attica
Urban
400
1,246,249
3115.62
1144.37
36.73
Crete
Urban
50
188,937
3778.74
1635.62
43.28
Northern Greece
Urban
30
310,254
10341.80
4403.45
42.58
Intermediate
180
405,333
2251.85
568.32
25.24
Rural
100
343,111
3431.11
1336.80
38.96
Central Greece
Urban
50
211,864
4237.28
1501.49
35.44
Intermediate
99
204,361
2064.25
1134.32
54.95
Rural
91
265,819
2921.09
1374.57
47.06
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 59

APPENDICES
Table 21. Hungary Wave 1 inﬂation weights: summary statistics.
Region
N
Sum
Mean
SD
CV
Central Hungary
Urban
192
386,584
2013.46
1035.13
51.41
Intermediate
109
263,482
2417.27
1240.71
51.33
Urban Transdanubia∗
Urban
60
128,888
2148.13
949.29
44.19
Rest of Central Transdanubia
Intermediate
40
162,760
4069.00
3075.88
75.59
Rural
40
160,280
4007.00
1841.17
45.95
Rest of Western Transdanubia
Intermediate
30
95,769
3192.30
1982.95
62.12
Rural
50
98,836
1976.72
686.94
34.75
Rest of Southern Transdanubia
Intermediate
40
77,026
1925.65
592.38
30.76
Rural
40
107,805
2695.13
1452.07
53.88
Urban Nothern/Great Plain†
Urban
90
199,911
2221.23
1128.61
50.81
Rest of Northern Hungary
Intermediate
50
125,863
2517.26
1109.38
44.07
Rural
50
149,970
2999.40
1155.13
38.51
Rest of Northern Great Plain
Intermediate
60
134,698
2244.97
586.84
26.14
Rural
50
157,101
3142.02
1773.08
56.43
Rest of Southern Great Plain
Intermediate
59
104,698
1774.54
560.43
31.58
Rural
40
107,089
2677.23
812.45
30.35
∗Urban areas of Central/Western/Southern Transdanubia
†Urban Northern Hungary and Northern & Southern Great Plain
60 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Table 22. Poland Wave 1 inﬂation weights: summary statistics.
Region
N
Sum
Mean
SD
CV
Lodzkie (NUTS2)
Urban
29
291,212
10041.79
5439.11
54.16
Intermediate
22
129,331
5878.68
2756.69
46.89
Rural
28
203,342
7262.21
3797.19
52.29
Mazowieckie (NUTS2)
Urban
64
683,814
10684.59
3694.32
34.58
Intermediate
44
354,887
8065.61
2047.52
25.39
Rural
48
396,225
8254.69
2376.85
28.79
Poludniowy (NUTS1)
Urban
75
881,440
11752.53
5379.99
45.78
Intermediate
90
458,659
5096.21
2650.69
52.01
Rural
63
286,720
4551.11
1933.68
42.49
Wschondi (NUTS1)
Urban
48
502,357
10465.77
5085.35
48.59
Intermediate
41
452,866
11045.51
3563.82
32.26
Rural
90
853,661
9485.12
5294.18
55.82
Polnocno-Zachodni (NUTS1)
Urban
53
517,536
9764.83
4614.77
47.26
Intermediate
53
337,125
6360.85
3525.60
55.43
Rural
52
815,398
15680.73
7643.61
48.75
Poludniowo-Zachodni (NUTS1)
Urban
21
298,789
14228.05
3551.69
24.96
Intermediate
25
165,295
6611.80
2475.81
37.45
Rural
18
346,598
19255.44
6465.94
33.58
Polnocny (NUTS1)
Urban
51
416,991
8176.29
5196.16
63.55
Intermediate
34
179,216
5271.06
2790.68
52.94
Rural
57
457,262
8022.14
5666.73
70.64
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 61

APPENDICES
Table 23. Romania Wave 1 inﬂation weights: summary statistics.
Region
N
Sum
Mean
SD
CV
North-West + Central
Urban
69
332,694
4821.65
1427.97
29.62
Intermediate
70
202,835
2897.64
2036.15
70.27
Rural
100
339,324
3393.24
1354.23
39.91
North-East
Urban
49
168,638
3441.59
1530.90
44.48
Intermediate
60
168,375
2806.25
1349.84
48.10
Rural
80
192,251
2403.14
1426.19
59.35
South-East
Urban
63
187,780
2980.63
1293.91
43.41
Rural
51
142,605
2796.18
1826.73
65.33
South + Bucharest
Urban
120
758,584
6321.53
3952.70
62.53
Intermediate
70
252,916
3613.09
2677.76
74.11
Rural
80
399,018
4987.73
1794.99
35.99
South-West + West
Urban
59
439,585
7450.59
4145.60
55.64
Intermediate
40
220,055
5501.38
2343.32
42.60
Rural
90
573,659
6373.99
3651.28
57.28
Table 24. Spain Wave 1 inﬂation weights: summary statistics.
Region
N
Sum
Mean
SD
CV
Galicia/Asturias/
Urban
40
560,405
14010.12
6740.35
48.11
Cantabria
Intermediate
40
323,241
8081.03
3386.17
41.90
Rural
30
372,296
12409.87
6325.76
50.97
Pais Vasco/Rioja/
Urban
51
362,551
7108.84
3309.10
46.55
Aragon
Intermediate
30
178,905
5963.50
2078.56
34.85
Rural
19
275,531
14501.63
6948.82
47.92
Madrid/Leon/La Mancha/
Urban
160
1,829,240
11432.75
4960.97
43.39
Extremadura
Intermediate
60
421,696
7028.27
4243.97
60.38
Rural
50
898,850
17977.00
11392.04
63.37
Valencia/Baleares
Urban
60
545,062
9084.37
4592.59
50.55
Intermediate
60
622,008
10366.80
3414.61
32.94
Cataluna/Valencia
Rural
20
339,591
16979.55
3857.49
22.72
Rest of Cataluna
Urban
110
833,178
7574.35
2862.50
37.79
Intermediate
50
382,029
7640.58
3163.80
41.41
Andalucia/Murcia
Urban
111
1,091,196
9830.59
4628.63
47.08
Intermediate
80
541,425
6767.81
3206.79
47.38
Rural
30
872,486
29082.87
11734.24
40.35
62 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
D
Field materials
Every Interviewer going into the ﬁeld should have the following: Field preparatory ma-
terials:
• Interviewer’s tablets (using NFIELD software in each country)
• ID card
• Survey manual and maps of the sampling points were loaded on the tablet
• Incentives
Every Supervisor had the following ﬁeld materials:
• Maps of selected survey areas, where possible.
• Additional interviewing tablet
E
Survey information letter and consent
The following are the scripts used for both the information letter and consent:
Selected Respondent Information Letter:
Research Project: International Tobacco Control 6 European Country Project
(ITC 6E Project)
Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Waterloo: ORE # 21262, IRBs
What is this research about?
The International Tobacco Control (ITC) Project 6-European Country Study is a project un-
der the European Regulatory Science on Tobacco: Policy implementation to reduce lung
diseases (EUREST-PLUS). The objectives of EUREST-PLUS are to monitor and evaluate the
impact of the tobacco control policies within the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), the
newly adopted legislation in the EU, and assess these within the context of the WHO Frame-
work Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) ratiﬁcation at a European level. The primary
objective of the project is to evaluate the psychosocial and behavioural impact of the TPD.
The aims of this research are to ﬁnd out:
1. The impact of speciﬁc tobacco control policies within the TPD on residents of six Eu-
ropean countries (Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain),
2. The prevalence and patterns of tobacco use behaviour within these countries,
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 63

APPENDICES
3. The tobacco use behaviour and the impact of tobacco control policies between these
countries and other countries within the ITC Project.
Who is conducting this research?
The ITC 6E Project is led and coordinated by the ITC Project at the University of Waterloo
(UW) in Canada in collaboration with European Network of Smoking and Tobacco Preven-
tion (Belgium) and research partners from the 6 project countries. The overall international
project is being led by Professor Geoffrey T. Fong from the University of Waterloo, Canada,
in collaboration with Dr. Ute Mons, German Cancer Research Center; Prof. Yiannis Toun-
tas, University of Athens; Prof. Witold Zatonski, Poland Health Promotion Foundation; Dr.
Krzysztof Przewozniak, Poland Health Promotion Foundation; Prof. Antigona Trofor, Aer
Pur Romania; Prof. Esteve Fernandez, Institut Català d’Oncologia; Dr. Tibor Demjén, Smok-
ing or Health Hungarian Foundation; Prof. Aristidis Tsatsakis, University of Crete; and Mr.
Nicolas Bécuwe, Kantar Public Brussels.
What are we asking of you?
This research involves completing the survey interview (approximately 35 minutes) today.
We plan to return approximately every 18 months to do follow-up surveys because we are
interested in how peopleâ˘A´Zs opinions and behaviours might change over time.
Survey Participation
If you agree to participate in this research, ﬁrst we will need to ask you a few essential ques-
tions for statistical purposes and to determine whether you are eligible. If you are not eligi-
ble, or if you do not answer these essential questions, we will not proceed further with the
interview. If you are eligible, we will proceed with the interview, which will take about 35
minutes.
Participation is voluntary, and you may skip any non-essential questions if you wish. You
may stop and start again if you cannot complete the survey all at one time. Once we are
ﬁnished, a token of appreciation will be provided for your participation.
Risk
Participants will not face any risk or harm to their well-being either physically, psychologi-
cally, socially or culturally throughout completion of the survey.
Possible Beneﬁts
This study will help the researchers to evaluate and understand the effects of national-level
tobacco control policies in European Union Member States. Also policy makers throughout
the world will be able to use this evidence to create and implement tobacco control policies
for demonstrated effectiveness.
64 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
Conﬁdentiality and Security of Data
All the information you provide is treated as strictly conﬁdential. Data from this research
will not be destroyed, but any identifying information about you such as name and address
will be removed so that your answers cannot be linked back to you.
The data will be held in secure electronic ﬁles at the survey ﬁrm TNS Opinion (Belgium)
and at the University of Waterloo (Canada) on computers that have security certiﬁcates, are
password protected, and can only be accessed by the research team. Eventually, after two
years, the data without names or personal information may be shared with other health
researchers.
If you wish to discuss any questions or concerns about this research project, please contact:
Dr. Constantine Vardavas, Principal Investigator, EUREST-PLUS, European Network on
Smoking and Tobacco Prevention. Tel: *************.
OR
Dr. Geoffrey T. Fong, Principal Investigator, ITC Project, Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Waterloo, Canada. Tel: +1 519 888 4567 ext. 35811.
If you wish to lodge a complaint concerning the manner in which this research is being
conducted, please contact:
[ethics contact]
If you feel that the local ethics committee has not resolved your concerns to your satisfac-
tion, you may wish to contact the Human Research Ethics Committee in Canada that is
overseeing the project:
Ofﬁce of Research Ethics, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1, Tel: + 1 519 888 4567 ext. 36005
BI49260
Ask all.
Thank you. This is a comprehensive survey of smokers in this and other European Union
member countries that has to do with beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behavior about
tobacco use. It is being carried out by researchers from the EU and an international group.
This project is funded by an ongoing grant from the EU Horizon 2020. A major goal of the
survey is to examine how smokers in this country differ or are the same in their views to-
wards smoking.
We will talk to you for about 35 minutes, depending on your answers, and we think you will
ﬁnd the questions quite interesting. In addition, we will provide a token of appreciation for
your involvement in this survey.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 65

APPENDICES
All personal information you provide is treated as strictly conﬁdential, subject to legal re-
quirements and limitations. It will be held in secure storage and password protected at TNS
Opinion, Belgium and the University of Waterloo, Canada and only be accessed by this re-
search team. Any identifying information about you will be removed before the data are
securely stored, so that your answers cannot be linked back to you. After two years, the sur-
vey data, but not your name or other identifying information, will be shared with authorized
researchers in other countries, as it will be used to make comparisons of smoking behaviour
and attitudes across countries.
BI49235
Ask all.
Would you be willing to answer the 35-minute survey today and then again in 12-18 months
for a second token of our appreciation?
1 Yes
2 No
3 Time is not convenient
See HelpScreens for answers to any questions about follow-up surveys and contacts.
If response=1, go to FR225.
If response=2, go to BI439.
If response=3, make appointment and terminate.
BI49439
Ask if BI235=2.
We understand how you feel. We really appreciate your participation. The difference be-
tween this and most other surveys is that this is an EU and international research project
and we are talking to the same people a number of times to better understand what affects
their opinions and smoking behaviour. This is why your participation is so important to us.
Can we just start with a few questions and see how it goes? (If hesitates, say) Or would an-
other time be better?
1 Yes
2 No
3 Another time would be better
If response=1, go to FR225.
If response=2, go to BI901. (enter Indivdisp)
If response=3, make appointment and end interview.
66 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
F
Final outcomes rates
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 67

APPENDICES
Table 25. Final outcome rates
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Spain
1. Number of addresses approached/attempted
10325
3537
2754
3421
4490
4114
2. Number of addresses where contact has been made
8259
2856
2404
3028
2778
3853
3. Number of contacted addresses with eligibility determined
3086
1295
1791
2154
2065
2451
4. Number of contacted addresses with no eligible respondents
1982
466
972
1163
1134
1509
5. Number of contacted addresses with eligible respondents
1104
829
819
991
931
942
6. Number of addresses with eligible respondents, members selected
1085
823
809
976
911
936
7. Eligibility rate for households, given determination (5./3.)
0.358
0.640
0.457
0.460
0.451
0.384
8. Estimated eligible households among attempted (7.*1.)
3694
2264
1259
1574
2024
1581
9. Number of individuals selected for interview
1425
1116
1078
1265
1254
1234
10. Number of individual refusals or break offs
200
91
64
227
232
219
11. Number of completed interviews
1003
1000
1000
1006
1003
1001
Household contact rate (2./1.)
0.800
0.807
0.873
0.885
0.619
0.937
Household cooperation rate, given eligible (6./5.)
0.983
0.993
0.988
0.985
0.979
0.994
Household response rate (6./8.)
0.294
0.363
0.642
0.620
0.450
0.592
Individual cooperation rate (11./(11.+10.))
0.834
0.917
0.940
0.816
0.812
0.820
Individual response rate, given selection (11./9.)
0.704
0.896
0.928
0.795
0.800
0.811
68 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
G
Country proﬁles
GERMANY
Germany has an estimated population of 82 million, 75% of whom live in urban areas. In
2014, GDP per capita was US $42,000, making it the fourth largest economy in the world
(nominally). Tobacco consumption leads to more than 128,000 deaths each year.
According to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2015, the percentage of
current tobacco smokers across both sexes was 24.5% with women smoking at a rate of ap-
proximately 20.3%, and men smoking at a rate of 29.0%. In terms of daily users, the rate
drops to 20.9% total (17.1% Women and 25.1% Men). For youth aged 12-17, the total smok-
ing rate is 12%; however, unlike adults, young girls have the higher smoking rate over their
male counterparts with smoking rates of 12.6% and 11.5% respectively. The use of smoke-
less forms of tobacco in Germany are very small, with approximately 2% of all adults using
smokeless tobacco.
As of December 2014, total government expenditure on tobacco control activities was ap-
proximately 4.5 million euros annually.
Price of Tobacco. Cigarette prices in Germany are in the middle range of costs across Eu-
rope. As of March 2015, the average price per pack of 20 cigarettes was 5.96 euros. Excise
taxes on cigarettes meet the recommended percentage of at least 70% excise tax of the retail
price set out by the WHO with a 72.9% excise tax in place since 2012.
Smoke-free. As of 2007, Germany passed a comprehensive public smoke-free law. A smok-
ing ban in restaurants, bars, and pubs was brought into force in August 2007, however Ger-
man courts overturned the ban in one-room bars and restaurants. State authorities may
pass more stringent smoke-free laws than those passed by the federal government. As such,
regional governments in Bavaria, Saarland, and North Rhine-Westphalia have all introduced
stricter smoke-free legislation such as the elimination of designated smoking rooms, or full
bans on smoking in public places. Currently smoking is restricted in indoor workplaces and
public spaces nationwide. Smoking is also prohibited on all forms of transportation unless
‘physically separate units’ exist for tobacco users. This means smoking is banned in forms
of transportation such as streetcars or trolleys, buses, and taxis.
Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship. Germany adopted its ﬁrst advertising
and promotion ban of smoked tobacco in 1974 when it passed a comprehensive ban on ad-
vertising on both television and radio. A comprehensive advertising ban was later adopted
in 1991. Point of sale advertising and promotion is still allowed in Germany. In 2010, a ban
on all forms of promotional discounts was passed.
Tobacco Packaging and Labelling. Prior to the European Commission Tobacco Products
Directive (TPD), 2014, smoked tobacco products only required one of two text warnings
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 69

APPENDICES
occupying 30% of the front of the package, as well as an additional text message (one of
fourteen authorized messages) on the back of the package occupying 40% of the space. Un-
der the new TPD, Germany must now feature one of 14 combined (graphic) health warnings
occupying at least 65% of both the front and back surfaces.
FCTC Status. Germany became a party of the FCTC on October 24, 2003 and ratiﬁed the
Agreement on December 16, 2004.
GREECE
Greece has an estimated population of 11 million, approximately 78% of whom live in urban
areas. As of 2015, GDP per capita was US $26,000, making it the 46th largest economy in the
world (nominally).
According to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2015, the percentage of
current tobacco smokers across both sexes was 38.2% with women smoking at a rate of ap-
proximately 25.7%, and men smoking at a rate of 51.2%. In terms of daily users, the rate
drops to 36.6% total (23.9% Women and 49.7% Men). For youth aged 12-17, the total smok-
ing rate is 16.4% (13.3% female and 19.3% male). The use of smokeless forms of tobacco in
Greece is very small, with approximately 0.2% of all adults using smokeless tobacco.
Price of Tobacco. Cigarette prices in Greece are low when compared to the rest of Europe.
As of March 2015, the average price per pack of 20 cigarettes was 4.36 euros. Excise taxes on
cigarettes meet the recommended percentage of at least 70% excise tax of the retail price set
out by the WHO with a 79.95% excise tax in place since 2014.
Smoke-free. As of July 1, 2009 Greece has banned smoking in all healthcare facilities, food
preparation areas, and entertainment venues, as well as public or private working areas, and
any enclosed waiting area, airport, or transportation station. While such legislation exists,
Greece has not enforced such bans effectively, especially in restaurants, cafes, and bars. As
such, few restaurants or cafes comply with the legislation.
Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship. Greece has had a comprehensive ban
on all tobacco advertising and promotion since July 2005. As such, all forms of tobacco
advertising on television and radio, as well as any domestic print media and outdoor ad-
vertising such as billboards are prohibited. Any free distribution of tobacco products is also
banned, while promotional discount prices are still allowed.
Tobacco Packaging and Labelling. Prior to the European Commission Tobacco Products
Directive (TPD), 2014, smoked tobacco products only required text warnings occupying
30% of the primary surface area of the pack. The law required that the back surface of the
tobacco package have a warning that covered at least 40% of that surface. Under the new
TPD, Greece must now feature one of 14 combined (graphic) health warnings occupying at
least 65% of both the front and back surfaces.
70 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
FCTC Status. Greece became a party of the FCTC on June 16, 2003 and ratiﬁed the Agree-
ment on January 27, 2006.
HUNGARY
Hungary has an estimated population of 9.8 million, approximately 71% of whom live in
urban areas. As of 2016, GDP per capita was US $26,941, making it the 58th largest economy
in the world (nominally).
According to the latest WHO FCTC Report (2016), the percentage of current tobacco smok-
ers across both sexes was 27.5% with women smoking at a rate of approximately 22.2%, and
men smoking at a rate of 33.4%. In terms of daily users, the rate drops to 25.8% total (20.8%
Women and 31.5% Men). For youth aged 13-15, the total smoking rate is 30.5% (28.0% fe-
male and 33.0% male).
Price of Tobacco. Cigarette prices in Hungary are low when compared to the rest of Europe.
As of March 2015, the average price per pack of 20 cigarettes was 3.84 euros. Excise taxes on
cigarettes meet the recommended percentage of at least 70% excise tax of the retail price set
out by the WHO with a 77.26% excise tax in 2014.
Smoke-free. As of 1999, Hungary has had a comprehensive smoking ban in locations such
as: medical institutions, pharmacies, childcare facilities, educational facilities, social insti-
tutions, sports facilities, government facilities, hospitality establishments, and workplaces.
Under the same law, private establishments could allow smoking under particular circum-
stances. An amendment to Act XLII of 1999 on the Protection of Non-Smokers and Certain
Regulations on the Consumption and Distribution of Tobacco Products was passed by the
Hungarian Parliament on 26 April 2011. According to the amendment, by 1 January 2012
smoking is prohibited on all public transportation and in all enclosed public places, includ-
ing workplaces, bars and restaurants. Smoking is also banned in public education, childcare
and health-care institutions; designated areas for smokers will be forbidden both indoors
and outdoors at these facilities..
Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship. Hungary has had a comprehensive
ban on all tobacco advertising and promotion since September 2008 (both direct and indi-
rect). Hungary has also banned tobacco company sponsorship in all forms, as well as any
use of promotional free-samples of tobacco products. Promotional discounts, as well as
advertising at the point-of-sale, are still permitted.
Tobacco Packaging and Labelling. Prior to the European Commission Tobacco Products
Directive (TPD), 2014, smoked tobacco products required graphic warnings on all tobacco
products. Warnings needed to cover 30% of the front and 40% of the back surface areas of
all tobacco packages. According to the TPD for 14 text warnings, there are 42 pictures (3
pictures per text). Each year a new picture accompanies the text warnings.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 71

APPENDICES
From 20 August 2016, Hungary requires cigarette packages to carry pictorial health warnings
of 65% of the front and back of packages. All packs with smaller pictorial warnings will need
to be sold out by 20 May 2017.
FCTC Status. Hungary became a party of the FCTC on June 16, 2003 and ratiﬁed the Agree-
ment on April 7, 2004.
POLAND
Poland has an estimated population of 38.2 million, approximately 60% of whom live in
urban areas. As of 2015, GDP per capita was US $26,500, and represents the 24th largest
economy in the world according to the World Bank.
According to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2015, the percentage of
current cigarette smokers across both sexes was 26.0% with women smoking at a rate of
approximately 23.0%, and men smoking at a rate of 30.0%. In terms of daily users, the rate
drops to 22.0% total (18.0% Women and 27.0% Men). For youth, 12.1% of young females and
15.7% of young males smoke respectively. The use of smokeless forms of tobacco in Poland
is very small, with approximately 0.5% of all adults using smokeless tobacco.
Price of Tobacco. Cigarette prices in Poland are low when compared to the rest of Europe.
As of March 2015, the average price per pack of 20 cigarettes was 3.84 euros. Excise taxes on
cigarettes meet the recommended percentage of at least 70% excise tax of the retail price set
out by the WHO with a 80.3% excise tax in place as of 2014.
Smoke-free. As of April 30, 1996, Poland has had a comprehensive ban on smoking in any
premise designated for public use. This includes public transportation and transportation
establishments, sporting establishments and public playgrounds for children, workplaces,
and public cultural, recreational, food, and entertainment establishments.
Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship. Poland has had a comprehensive ban
on all tobacco advertising and promotion since April 30, 1996. As such, all forms of tobacco
advertising on television and radio, as well as any domestic print media and outdoor adver-
tising such as billboards are prohibited. This includes a ban on advertising at the point-of-
sale, though compliance with this particular area is low according to the WHO. Any form of
promotional discount, free-sample, or sponsorship of an event is also banned.
Tobacco Packaging and Labelling. Prior to the European Commission Tobacco Products
Directive (TPD), 2014, smoked tobacco products only required text warnings occupying
35% of the primary surface area of the pack (30% of the front and 40% of the back). Un-
der the new TPD, Poland must now feature one of 14 combined (graphic) health warnings
occupying at least 65% of both the front and back surfaces.
FCTC Status. Poland became a party of the FCTC on June 14, 2004 and ratiﬁed the Agree-
ment on September 15, 2006.
72 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report

APPENDICES
ROMANIA
Romania has an estimated population of 21.6 million, approximately 54.6% of whom live in
urban areas. As of 2015, GDP per capita was US $20,800 in Romania, and represents the 51st
largest economy in the world according to the World Bank.
According to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2015, the percentage of
current cigarette smokers across both sexes was 26.7% with women smoking at a rate of
approximately 16.7%, and men smoking at a rate of 37.4%. In terms of daily users, the rate
drops to 24.3% total (14.5% Women and 34.9% Men). For youth aged 13-15 the total smoking
rate is 11.2%, 10.1% of young females and 12.2% of young males smoking respectively.
Price of Tobacco. Cigarette prices in Romania are low when compared to the rest of Europe.
As of July 2014, the lowest price per pack of 20 cigarettes was 2.80 euros and the highest
price was 3.26 euros inclusive of taxes. Excise taxes on cigarettes meet the recommended
percentage of at least 70% excise tax of the retail price set out by the WHO with a 75.4%
excise tax in place as of December 2014.
Smoke-free. As of 2002, Romania has had a complete ban on smoking in all enclosed places,
including workplaces, public transportation, children’s playgrounds, health care facilities,
and educational facilities. Smoking is also banned in all restaurants, bars, cafes, and night-
clubs.
Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship. Romania has had a comprehensive
ban on all tobacco advertising since January 31, 2008. As such, all forms of tobacco ad-
vertising on television and radio, as well as print media and outdoor advertising such as
billboards are prohibited. Free or paid distribution of tobacco or related products, products
that have an evident likeness to tobacco products, and any products used to promote smok-
ing to minors are also banned. As of 2014, promotional discounts on tobacco products were
still permitted in Romania.
Tobacco Packaging and Labelling. Graphic health warnings have been required in Romania
since 2002. As of 2014, warnings were required to meet a minimum of 35% of the principal
display areas (30% on the front and 40% on the back). With the implementation of the Euro-
pean Commission Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), 2014, Romania must now feature one
of 14 combined (graphic) health warnings occupying at least 65% of both the front and back
surfaces.
FCTC Status. Romania became a party of the FCTC on June 25, 2004 and ratiﬁed the Agree-
ment on January 27, 2006.
SPAIN
Spain has an estimated population of 47 million, approximately 79.6% of whom live in urban
areas. As of 2015, GDP per capita was US $28,520 in Spain, and represents the 14th largest
economy in the world according to the World Bank.
ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report | 73

APPENDICES
According to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2015, the percentage of
current cigarette smokers across both sexes was 27.0% with women smoking at a rate of
approximately 22.8%, and men smoking at a rate of 31.4%. In terms of daily users, the rate
drops to 24.0% total (20.2% Women and 27.9% Men). For youth aged 14-18 the total smoking
rate is actually higher than that of adults. As of 31 December 2014, the smoking rate among
youth was 32.4%, 36.4% of young females and 28.1% of young males smoking respectively.
Price of Tobacco. Cigarette prices in Spain are in the middle when compared to the rest
of Europe. As of March 2015, the average price per pack of 20 cigarettes was 5.29 euros
inclusive of taxes. Excise taxes on cigarettes meet the recommended percentage of at least
70% excise tax of the retail price set out by the WHO with a 78.09% excise tax in place as of
31 July 2014.
Smoke-free. As of January 1, 2006, Spain has had a ban on smoking spaces such as health,
teaching, sports, shopping, social, recreational, and entertainment establishments, as well
as workplaces, dance halls, gaming, food, and cultural centres. Under this law, smoking
rooms are allowed to exist in hospitality establishments (up to 30% of the establishment).
All public administrative and law entities are to be smoke free, as are public transportation
premises and vehicles, taxis and ambulances. Spain has a strong record of compliance with
its smoke-free laws.
Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship. As of 2003, Spain has banned all adver-
tising from television and radio broadcasting, and all printed mediums (with the exception
of tobacco trade publications). Spain has also banned smoking or the mentioning of smok-
ing related brands or activities from all domestic media. Spain has prohibited any promo-
tional activities such as discounts, free distribution, or sponsorships. As of January 2nd 2011,
the smoke-free legislation was improved with the prohibition of smoking in all hospitality
venues with no exceptions as well as at the outdoors of campuses of educational institutions
and healthcare centres.
Tobacco Packaging and Labelling. Spain mandated graphic health warnings as of May 27,
2010. As of 2014, warnings were required to meet a minimum of 35% of the principal dis-
play areas (30% on the front and 40% on the back). With the implementation of the Euro-
pean Commission Tobacco Products Directive (TPD), 2014, Spain must now feature one of
14 combined (graphic) health warnings occupying at least 65% of both the front and back
surfaces.
FCTC Status. Spain became a party of the FCTC on June 16, 2003 and ratiﬁed the Agreement
on January 11, 2005.
74 | ITC 6 European Country Wave 1 Technical Report