4.6 Article

The neighbourhood effects of geographical access to tobacco retailers on individual smoking behaviour

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jech.2007.070656

关键词

-

资金

  1. New Zealand Ministry of Health
  2. 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey
  3. Maria Turley and Kylie Mason of Public Health Intelligence
  4. Ministry of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To investigate whether neighbourhood measures of geographical accessibility to outlets selling tobacco (supermarkets, convenience stores and petrol stations) are associated with individual smoking behaviour in New Zealand. Methods: Using geographical information systems, travel times from the population-weighted centroid of each neighbourhood to the closest outlet selling tobacco were calculated for all 38 350 neighbourhoods across New Zealand. These measures were appended to the 2002/03 New Zealand Health Survey, a national survey of 12 529 adults. Two-level logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effects of neighbourhood locational access upon individual smoking behaviour after controlling for potential individual- and neighbourhood-level confounding factors, including deprivation and urban/rural status. Results: After controlling for individual- level demographic and socioeconomic variables, individuals living in the quartiles of neighbourhoods with the best access to supermarkets (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.42) and convenience stores (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.38) had a higher odds of smoking compared with individuals in the worst access quartiles. However, the association between neighbourhood accessibility to supermarkets and convenience stores was not apparent once other neighbourhood-level variables (deprivation and rurality) were included. Conclusions: At the national level, there is little evidence to suggest that, after adjustment for neighbourhood deprivation, better locational access to tobacco retail provision in New Zealand is associated with individual-level smoking behaviour.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据