Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

British Doctors Study

The British Doctors Study was a pioneering prospective cohort study initiated in 1951 by epidemiologists Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill at the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom, which followed the smoking habits and mortality of 40,701 British physicians (34,440 men and 6,261 women) over 50 years until 2001, establishing the first robust statistical evidence that tobacco smoking causes lung cancer and substantially increases risks for other major diseases including coronary heart disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.^[1]^[2] The study originated from earlier case-control research by Doll and Hill in 1950, which suggested a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, prompting the need for a larger, forward-looking investigation to confirm causality amid rising tobacco use and lung cancer incidence in the mid-20th century.^[2] In October 1951, questionnaires on smoking habits were mailed to all 59,600 physicians listed in the British Medical Register, with responses forming the baseline cohort; follow-up surveys were conducted in 1957, 1966, 1971, 1978, 1991, and 2001 to update habits, while mortality and cancer data were systematically tracked through national records from the Office for National Statistics and cancer registries.^[1]^[2] Preliminary results published in 1954 revealed that lung cancer death rates were dramatically higher among smokers—24 times greater for heavy smokers (over 25 cigarettes daily) compared to non-smokers—providing early proof of smoking's role in the disease.^[3] Subsequent reports over decades showed that smoking accounted for about half of deaths among persistent smokers under age 70, with risks extending to other cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory conditions, while quitting at younger ages (e.g., before 35) could largely restore normal life expectancy.^[4] By the 50-year follow-up in 2004, the study demonstrated that smoking shortened life expectancy by approximately 10 years, with benefits from cessation increasing over time. This landmark research profoundly influenced public health policy worldwide, contributing to the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General's report on smoking and subsequent anti-tobacco legislation, education campaigns, and declines in smoking prevalence; it remains a cornerstone of modern epidemiology for demonstrating the lifelong health impacts of modifiable risk factors.^[1]^[2]

Background

Historical Context

The rise of cigarette smoking in Britain accelerated after World War I, as soldiers returned habituated to tobacco distributed in rations, and aggressive marketing by manufacturers further entrenched the practice. By the 1940s, smoking had become ubiquitous among men, with prevalence exceeding 70% and reaching a peak of 82% in 1948.^[5] This trend was driven by cultural normalization and economic accessibility, transforming tobacco from a niche product to a daily staple for the majority of adult males.^[6] Early efforts to link tobacco use to health risks emerged in the 1930s through anecdotal observations and preliminary analyses, though these lacked the methodological rigor of later epidemiology. In 1929, German physician Fritz Lickint published the first statistical evidence from a case series of lung cancer patients, demonstrating disproportionately high smoking rates among them compared to the general population.^[7] Similarly, in 1938, American biologist Raymond Pearl analyzed longevity data from over 6,800 white male autopsies and found that moderate to heavy smokers died approximately 8 to 10 years earlier than non-smokers, suggesting tobacco's detrimental impact on lifespan.^[8] These studies provided initial correlations but were limited by small samples and retrospective designs, prompting calls for more systematic investigation. Post-World War II, lung cancer incidence in Britain escalated dramatically, paralleling the earlier surge in smoking; this increase was particularly stark in urban areas and among middle-aged males, aligning temporally with peak smoking adoption two to three decades prior, shifting the disease from rarity to a leading cause of cancer mortality among men.^[9] The mounting evidence culminated in influential retrospective studies in 1950 that solidified the smoking-lung cancer connection and underscored the need for prospective cohort research. In the United States, Wynder and Graham's hospital-based case-control study of 684 lung cancer patients and 684 controls revealed that heavy smokers were up to 40 times more likely to develop bronchogenic carcinoma than non-smokers. Concurrently in the United Kingdom, Doll and Hill's analysis of 1,465 lung cancer cases and controls from London hospitals demonstrated a dose-dependent association, with only 0.3% of cases being non-smokers versus 3.5% of controls.^[10] These findings, which highlighted tobacco as a primary etiologic factor, motivated researchers like Doll and Hill to launch a large-scale prospective inquiry.

Initiation and Rationale

The British Doctors Study was commissioned by the British Medical Research Council (MRC) in 1951, through its Statistical Research Unit at the University of London, to investigate the emerging links between tobacco smoking and lung cancer observed in earlier case-control studies conducted by Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill.^[11]^[2] These initial investigations, published in 1950, had identified a strong association but were limited by potential biases inherent in retrospective designs, such as recall inaccuracies and selection issues in hospital-based samples.^[2] The MRC sought a more robust approach to establish causality, leading to the decision for a large-scale prospective cohort study that would track participants forward in time, minimizing such biases and providing definitive evidence on smoking's role in mortality.^[1]^[2] Doll and Hill designed the initial questionnaire to capture detailed smoking habits, including current status, amount consumed, type of tobacco, and age at starting, alongside basic demographics.^[1] In October 1951, they mailed it to all 59,600 registered physicians on the British Medical Register, selected as the cohort due to their high literacy, willingness to participate, and ease of follow-up via centralized records.^[1]^[11] Of these, 41,024 responded, yielding a response rate of approximately 68.8%, with 40,701 valid participants (34,439 men and 6,262 women) after exclusions for incomplete data or deaths prior to the study's start.^[1]^[11] The study operated under an ethical framework emphasizing voluntary participation, with no interventions or treatments imposed on respondents; doctors could withdraw at any time.^[1] Confidentiality was prioritized through secure handling of identifiable data at the University of Oxford, anonymization before analysis, and restricted sharing only within the research team, particularly for linkages to death certificates via the Office for National Statistics.^[1] Funding was provided solely by the MRC, ensuring independence from external influences, though the study's early findings drew scrutiny from the tobacco industry in the 1950s as part of broader efforts to challenge anti-smoking research.^[1]^[12] The MRC maintained the project's autonomy, rejecting any industry involvement.^[12]

Study Design

Cohort Composition

The British Doctors Study recruited its initial cohort through questionnaires distributed in October 1951 by the British Medical Association on behalf of the Medical Research Council to all registered British doctors. Although sent to all, analyses focused on males aged 35 years and older, as lung cancer was rare under 35; data from younger doctors were largely excluded. Of the 59,600 questionnaires sent, 34,439 male doctors provided complete responses on their smoking habits, with incomplete or unusable responses excluded to ensure data quality.^[13]^[1] The cohort was predominantly composed of white, middle-aged urban professionals, with a mean age of approximately 45 years at baseline (birth cohorts spanning 1851–1930, but concentrated in the early 1900s). These participants represented a highly educated group of physicians practicing across the United Kingdom, reflecting the professional demographics of British medicine at the time. The initial cohort also included approximately 6,000 female doctors, though due to the small number and lower smoking prevalence, most analyses focused on the male participants.^[11]^[13] Baseline smoking habits revealed a high prevalence of tobacco use, with approximately 17% classified as lifelong non-smokers and the majority having smoked regularly, including about 63% current cigarette smokers and additional pipe or cigar users; the questionnaire distinguished between cigarette smokers and those using pipes or cigars, capturing nuances in consumption patterns. Response rates showed an initial bias toward higher participation from non-smokers, potentially underrepresenting smokers early on, though subsequent statistical adjustments accounted for this in analyses. The effective follow-up cohort stabilized at 34,439 men, providing a robust foundation for long-term observations.^[13]^[1]

Data Collection

The British Doctors Study initiated data collection with a baseline questionnaire distributed in October 1951 by the British Medical Association on behalf of the Medical Research Council to all 59,600 registered doctors in the United Kingdom, of which 34,440 responded.^[13] This self-reported survey captured detailed smoking habits, including the duration of smoking, the amount consumed (typically measured in cigarettes per day), and the type of tobacco used, such as cigarettes, pipes, or cigars.^[13] No direct biomarkers, such as cotinine levels or lung function tests, were employed at baseline, relying instead on participants' recollections to classify them into categories like non-smokers, light smokers, or heavy smokers.^[13] To monitor changes in smoking behavior over time, interim questionnaires were mailed to surviving participants in 1957, 1966, 1971, 1978, 1991, 1998, and 2001.^[13] These follow-up surveys repeated key questions on current smoking status, allowing researchers to track shifts such as cessation, initiation, or alterations in consumption levels.^[13] Response rates were high initially but declined progressively, reaching approximately 70% by the 1990s, which introduced some potential for selection bias in longitudinal habit data.^[13] Health outcomes were primarily ascertained through death certificates obtained centrally from the General Register Office, with causes of death coded according to successive revisions of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), such as ICD-6 for early cancer classifications.^[13] For non-fatal events, particularly after the 1970s, supplementary data were drawn from hospital records and notifications of illnesses provided by participants or their physicians.^[13] This approach ensured comprehensive mortality tracking while supplementing with morbidity information where available. To enhance accuracy and minimize underreporting, validation procedures included cross-checks against postal death inquiries sent to doctors' last known addresses and corroborative reports from attending physicians.^[13] These methods helped verify vital status and causes of death, particularly in cases of delayed notifications, though challenges persisted for emigrants or those with incomplete records.^[13]

Methods and Analysis

Prospective Follow-up

The British Doctors Study conducted a prospective follow-up over 50 years, from 1951 to 2001, achieving more than 95% mortality ascertainment through linkage with national registries.^[13] This extended monitoring allowed for the continuous observation of the cohort's health outcomes, building on baseline data from the initial 1951 surveys.^[1] Tracking mechanisms included annual reviews of death certificates to identify and classify mortality events, supplemented by follow-up questionnaires sent to surviving participants to update smoking habits and medical history.^[13] These questionnaires were distributed in 1957, 1966, 1971, 1978, 1991, 1998, and 2001, with response rates of 94% or higher.^[13] Comprehensive tracing of remaining participants was achieved through national death records and cancer registries.^[13] Cause-specific mortality data encompassed categories such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, enabling detailed examination of disease patterns over time.^[13] The follow-up demonstrated exceptional completeness, with 99% of all deaths successfully traced across the cohort of approximately 34,400 male doctors.^[13] Loss to follow-up was minimal, at less than 1%, primarily attributable to emigration rather than study withdrawal.^[13] In total, 31,496 participants were followed with 99.2% mortality completeness, leaving only 248 individuals untraced.^[13] Adaptations to the tracking process evolved with technological advancements, including a shift to computerized records in the 1970s to handle the growing volume of data efficiently.^[13]

Statistical Techniques

The British Doctors Study employed prospective cohort analysis, tracking mortality over time using person-years at risk as the primary denominator for calculating age-standardized death rates per 1,000 individuals annually. This approach allowed for the accumulation of exposure data across the cohort, enabling comparisons of mortality between smoking categories while accounting for varying follow-up durations. Death rates were stratified by age groups to ensure comparability, with early analyses relying on manual tabulations and later ones incorporating computational tools for efficiency.^[14]^[13] Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were a core metric, computed as the ratio of observed deaths in the cohort to expected deaths based on national population rates, multiplied by 100 to express as a percentage. The expected deaths were derived by applying age- and calendar period-specific mortality rates from the general UK population to the person-years at risk within each subgroup of the study cohort, providing a benchmark for assessing excess mortality attributable to smoking habits.

\text{SMR} = \left( \frac{\text{observed deaths}}{\text{expected deaths}} \right) \times 100

This indirect standardization method facilitated valid comparisons across smoking exposure levels, highlighting deviations from population norms. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated by dividing the age-standardized death rates of smokers by those of non-smokers, quantifying the multiplicative increase in mortality associated with tobacco use. Dose-response relationships were examined by categorizing exposure in terms of daily cigarette consumption or cumulative pack-years, revealing a gradient where higher intensities correlated with elevated risks, without a discernible safe threshold.^[13]^[15] Confounder adjustments were primarily achieved through age standardization in initial reports, with subsequent analyses incorporating multivariate techniques to control for factors such as alcohol consumption, occupational exposures, and social class, using data from periodic questionnaires. Post-1970s analyses introduced Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios while simultaneously adjusting for multiple covariates, enhancing the precision of risk attributions beyond simple stratification. These models assumed proportional hazards over time, allowing for time-dependent covariates like changes in smoking status. Early life-table methods were applied to project survival probabilities and cumulative mortality, using exponential survival functions based on annual death rates to simulate long-term outcomes.^[13]61720-6/fulltext) The study pioneered the application of Bradford Hill's criteria for inferring causality from observational data, integrating statistical associations with biological plausibility and temporality to strengthen etiological claims. Computationally, methods evolved from manual calculations and punch-card systems in the 1950s to statistical software like SAS by the 1980s, enabling more complex multivariate regressions and handling of large datasets from extended follow-up. These innovations in epidemiological analysis set precedents for handling confounding and time-varying exposures in long-term cohort studies.^[14]^[13]

Key Findings

Smoking and Lung Cancer

The British Doctors Study provided seminal evidence establishing a causal relationship between cigarette smoking and lung cancer through its prospective design, which tracked mortality among 40,701 British physicians (34,439 men and 6,262 women) who responded to initial questionnaires in 1951.^[14] The landmark findings from the first two reports, published in 1954 and 1956, demonstrated that smokers had substantially higher lung cancer death rates compared to never-smokers, with heavy smokers experiencing approximately 24 times the risk. These results were based on observed deaths during the initial follow-up periods, where lung cancer mortality among cigarette smokers was markedly elevated, marking a pivotal shift in understanding the etiology of the disease.^[14] A clear dose-response relationship was evident, with lung cancer risk increasing linearly with the number of cigarettes smoked daily. For instance, smokers consuming 1-14 cigarettes per day had a relative risk (RR) of about 9, while those smoking 25 or more cigarettes per day faced an RR of approximately 24, compared to never-smokers. Pipe and cigar smokers also showed elevated risks, though lower than cigarette smokers, with death rates from lung cancer roughly 5-10 times higher than never-smokers depending on inhalation practices and frequency. This gradient underscored the direct role of tobacco exposure in carcinogenesis. The association was particularly strong for specific histological subtypes of lung cancer. Risks were highest for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma, where relative risks exceeded 20 for heavy smokers, whereas the link was somewhat weaker for adenocarcinoma, with RRs around 10-15 in similar groups.^[16] Cessation offered substantial benefits, with the excess risk halving after 10 years of abstinence and approaching never-smoker levels after 20-30 years, as confirmed in long-term follow-up analyses.^[13] The persistence of these findings was affirmed in the 50-year update published in 2004, which analyzed data through 2001 and reinforced the enduring causal link between smoking and lung cancer mortality, with no evidence of confounding by other factors in the cohort.^[13]

Broader Health Risks

The British Doctors Study provided substantial evidence linking cigarette smoking to elevated risks of cardiovascular diseases beyond lung cancer. Among male participants, continuing smokers exhibited approximately 2-3 times higher mortality from coronary heart disease compared to lifelong non-smokers, with a relative risk (RR) of around 2.5 overall, particularly pronounced at younger ages (45-64 years) where the RR approached 3.^[17] Stroke mortality was also increased, though less markedly, with an RR of about 1.6 for cerebrovascular disease in smokers versus non-smokers.^[18] These associations demonstrated a dose-response relationship, with heavier smoking correlating to greater risk, and persisted after adjusting for potential confounders such as social class.^[17] Respiratory conditions other than lung cancer showed even steeper risks attributable to smoking in the cohort. Death rates from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were 10-20 times higher among continuing smokers than non-smokers, with emphysema and chronic bronchitis exhibiting clear dose-dependent increases in mortality.^[18] For instance, mortality rates for COPD rose progressively with daily cigarette consumption, from 0.11 per 1000 in non-smokers to 1.56 per 1000 in heavy smokers.^[18] The study further revealed broader systemic effects, with smokers experiencing substantially higher overall mortality (relative risks around 1.8 overall, higher at younger ages), about half of persistent smokers dying from smoking-related causes by the 2001 follow-up, particularly for men born around 1920.^[18] Links to other conditions included elevated risks for bladder cancer (RR approximately 2-3) and aortic aneurysm (part of other vascular diseases, RR ~1.8).^[17] No strong interaction with alcohol consumption was evident, though smokers reported higher intake (19 units/week vs. 8.3 in non-smokers), and occupational factors among doctors showed minimal confounding influence.^[18] Benefits of quitting were evident across ages: stopping by age 30 gained about 10 years of life expectancy, while quitting at 60 still added around 3 years compared to continuing smokers.^[18] Limited data from the smaller female cohort (6,194 doctors followed for 22 years) confirmed similar patterns, with smoking significantly increasing mortality from ischaemic heart disease and chronic obstructive lung disease, mirroring male trends despite lower absolute risks due to fewer heavy smokers among women at the time.^[19]

Impact and Legacy

Public Health Influence

The British Doctors Study profoundly influenced the 1964 U.S. Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health, which extensively cited the work of Richard Doll and Austin Bradford Hill as providing pivotal prospective evidence of a causal link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, with mortality ratios showing smokers at 9-10 times greater risk than non-smokers and heavy smokers at over 20 times greater risk.^[20] This report's conclusions, bolstered by the study's dose-response data and temporal sequencing of smoking preceding disease onset, marked a turning point in public health acknowledgment of tobacco's dangers. In the UK, the study's findings contributed to the Royal College of Physicians' 1971 report "Smoking and Health Now," which advocated for mandatory health warnings on cigarette packaging—a policy implemented that year stating "Warning by H.M. Government: Smoking can seriously damage your health."^[21] The study's evidence helped drive key U.S. policy changes, including the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which required the first surgeon general's warning on packs ("Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health"), directly responding to the 1964 report's reliance on British cohort data.^[22] In the 1970s, it supported the 1969 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, effective 1971, banning cigarette advertising on television and radio to curb youth exposure amid growing recognition of smoking's addictive and lethal effects demonstrated by the study.^[23] Internationally, the British Doctors Study informed the World Health Organization's early tobacco control efforts in the 1970s, drawing on cohort evidence to recommend global restrictions and awareness campaigns, laying groundwork for later frameworks like the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Over the long term, the study shaped smoking cessation programs in the EU and UK, such as the UK's NHS Stop Smoking Services launched in the 1990s and EU-wide initiatives under the 2001 Tobacco Products Directive, which mandated larger warnings and supported quitlines informed by the study's cessation benefits showing ex-smokers' risks declining toward non-smoker levels.^[11] The 2004 50-year follow-up report, revealing that smokers lost about 10 years of life expectancy on average, reinvigorated funding for UK quitlines and global cessation efforts, prompting renewed policy emphasis on tobacco dependence treatment. Tobacco industry challenges in the 1950s, including public relations campaigns and lawsuits questioning early epidemiological links to lung cancer, were refuted by the study's methodological independence, large-scale prospective design, and replicability across cohorts, solidifying its credibility against industry-funded doubt.^[24] In the 2020s, the British Doctors Study continues to inform vaping debates, cited in discussions of nicotine delivery risks and cessation efficacy, with its historical data on tobacco harm used to contextualize e-cigarettes as potentially less harmful alternatives for smokers while cautioning against youth uptake.^[25]

Key Figures and Contributions

Richard Doll served as the lead investigator of the British Doctors Study from its inception in 1951 until his death in 2005, pioneering the prospective cohort design that tracked 40,701 British doctors to establish the link between smoking and lung cancer.^[1] As a physician-turned-epidemiologist, Doll's work on the study built on his earlier 1950 case-control investigation, which prompted him to quit smoking after 19 years, transforming him from a habitual smoker into a lifelong advocate for tobacco control.^[26] Knighted in 1971 for his contributions to public health, Doll is widely credited with saving millions of lives through his anti-smoking research, which influenced global declines in tobacco use.^[27] Austin Bradford Hill, a pioneering statistician and epidemiologist, collaborated closely with Doll as the study's statistical architect, emphasizing prospective observational methods to overcome limitations of retrospective designs and providing rigorous analysis that confirmed smoking's causal role in mortality.^[2] As chair of the Medical Research Council's Statistical Research Unit from 1945 to 1961, Hill developed the influential Bradford Hill criteria for assessing causality in 1965, which were partly informed by the Doctors Study's findings on smoking and disease.^[28] Hill's steadfast commitment to scientific integrity helped the team withstand pressures from tobacco interests seeking to undermine their evidence.^[13] Later, Richard Peto joined in 1971 to lead statistical analyses, co-authoring major updates including the 50-year report that extended observations on smoking's long-term effects.^[13] Post-1970s, the study's operations shifted to the Clinical Trial Service Unit (CTSU) at Oxford University, where Peto and the team maintained follow-up and published ongoing results. The personal influences of Doll and Hill were pivotal: Doll's conviction from the 1950 findings drove the cohort's initiation under MRC auspices, while Hill's methodological rigor shaped its enduring validity. Together, they produced over 40 publications from the cohort, establishing it as a foundational model for large-scale prospective epidemiology, paralleled by studies like the Framingham Heart Study in advancing understanding of chronic disease risks.^[2]

References

[1]
British Doctors Study - CTSU
The British Doctors Study, which began in 1951, was the world's first large prospective study of the effects of smoking.Missing: primary sources
[2]
Mortality in relation to smoking: the British Doctors Study - PMC - NIH
It can be considered the first strong statistical proof of the correlation between smoking habit and many serious diseases, including lung cancer.Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
[3]
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.4877.1451
[4]
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.1.5396.1460
[5]
https://ash.org.uk/uploads/Smoking-Statistics-Fact-Sheet.pdf
[6]
The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link
Feb 16, 2012 · Cigarettes were recognised as the cause of the epidemic in the 1940s and 1950s, with the confluence of studies from epidemiology, animal experiments, cellular ...
[7]
Commentary: Schairer and Schöniger's forgotten tobacco ...
Fritz Lickint of Dresden published the first good statistical evidence of a lung cancer tobacco link in 1929, based on a case series showing that lung ...
[8]
Tobacco Smoking and Longevity - Science
Tobacco Smoking and Longevity. Raymond PearlAuthors Info & Affiliations. Science. 4 Mar 1938. Vol 87, Issue 2253. pp. 216-217. DOI: 10.1126/science.87.2253.216 ...
[9]
Epidemiology of Lung Cancer - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
Incidence and mortality attributed to lung cancer has risen steadily since the 1930s, predominantly due to the popularity of cigarette smoking.
[10]
Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung - The BMJ
Richard Doll, A. Bradford Hill. Doll R, Hill A B. Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung Br Med J 1950; 2 :739 doi:10.1136/bmj.2.4682.739. BibTeX (win & mac) ...
[11]
The British Doctors' Study (1951–2001) | Embryo Project Encyclopedia
Jan 30, 2018 · The objective of the study was to assess the risks associated with tobacco use, and its relationship to lung cancer. The researchers tracked ...
[12]
How the spin doctors talked up tobacco as thousands died
Apr 25, 2002 · Soon after British researcher Sir Richard Doll linked smoking with lung cancer in 1950, tobacco companies embarked on a concerted campaign ...
[13]
Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors
### Summary of Recruitment and Participant Details
[14]
The Mortality of Doctors in Relation to Their Smoking Habits - The BMJ
Richard Doll, A. Bradford Hill. Doll R, Hill A B. The Mortality of Doctors in Relation to Their Smoking Habits Br Med J 1954; 1 :1451 doi:10.1136/bmj.1.4877.Missing: original | Show results with:original
[15]
[PDF] Mortality in Relation to Smoking: Ten Years' Observations of British ...
and the excess mortality of smokers in these present observa- tions of British doctors is mainly due to a greatly increased death rate of the heavy smokers.
[16]
[PDF] DRAFT 2 A REVIEW OF THE EPIDEMIOLOGY OF LUNG CANCER ...
British doctors study. P. 1951-91. W.Scotland. GILLIS. West of Scotland case ... so risks estimated relative to 1-14/day - confidence limits could not be ...
[17]
Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male ... - NIH
For those born in 1920-1929 the probability of death in middle age (35-69) was 15% in non-smokers and 43% in cigarette smokers, corresponding to a threefold ...
[18]
Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years' observations on male ... - NIH
Mortality in relation to smoking: 40 years' observations on male British doctors. · Abstract · Full text · Selected References · ACTIONS · PERMALINK · RESOURCES · Cite.
[19]
Mortality in relation to smoking: 22 years' observations on female ...
Mortality in relation to smoking: 22 years' observations on female British doctors. R Doll. R Doll. Find articles by R Doll. , R Gray. R Gray. Find articles by ...
[20]
[PDF] SMOI(ING and HEALTH - GovInfo
The Service's review of the evidence and its statement at that time was largely focussed on the relationship of cigarette smoking to lung cancer. Since 1959 ...
[21]
[PDF] Hiding in plain sight: Treating tobacco dependency in the NHS - RCP
over 30,000 male British doctors.3 The study demonstrates a threefold higher overall mortality among doctors who smoke throughout their adult life relative.
[22]
Fifty Years of Change 1964–2014 - NCBI
At the same time, similar findings were reported from studies of British physicians ... In 1965, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 ...
[23]
The War Against Tobacco: 50 Years and Counting - PMC - NIH
... Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health.” A ban on advertising of cigarettes on television and radio went into effect in 1970. While health risks ...
[24]
Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics
The tobacco industry, beginning in the 1950s, used sophisticated public relations approaches to undermine and distort the emerging science.
[25]
Most smokers wrongly believe vaping is at least as harmful as smoking
Feb 28, 2024 · More than half of smokers in England wrongly believe that vaping is more harmful or as harmful as smoking, according to a new study led by UCL researchers.
[26]
[PDF] Saving 100 Million Lives by 2060 - Tobacco Harm Reduction
Oct 1, 2025 · This report examines how integrating 21st-century innovations into tobacco control – including tobacco harm reduction (THR) products, improved ...
[27]
The man who saved a million lives | Society | The Guardian
Apr 24, 2005 · The incidence of doctors dying from lung cancer was still small in 1954 ... According to Doll, Hill replied: 'Go away and prove it, because we ...
[28]
Epidemiologist Linked Smoking, Lung Cancer - Los Angeles Times
Jul 26, 2005 · Richard Doll, the British epidemiologist whose pioneering studies of the link between smoking and lung cancer saved millions of lives by ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[29]
Association or Causation?" (1965), by Austin Bradford Hill
Mar 23, 2017 · Hill introduces plausibility as his sixth criterion, stating that physicians can more confidently declare a causal relationship if they can ...