4.5 Article

Explaining socio-economic inequalities in daily smoking: a social-ecological approach

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 238-243

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckr039

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport
  2. Health Research and Development Council (ZON) [40050009]
  3. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Sydney [290540]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This study assessed the contributions of individual, household and neighbourhood-level factors to socio-economic inequalities in smoking. Methods: Data came from 2706 participants of the 2004 wave of the Dutch GLOBE study. Participants were asked about several social and material characteristics of their households, neighbourhoods and smoking in their environment. Indicators of socio-economic position were education and income. Associations with daily smoking were examined using logistic regression analyses. Results: Education and income were independently associated with daily smoking (mutually adjusted odds ratios for the lowest education and income groups: odds ratio (OR): 2.87, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.78-4.62; OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.09-2.23, respectively). Individual beliefs about smoking contributed most to the association of education with daily smoking. Individual beliefs about smoking and household material adversity contributed most to the association of income with daily smoking. We found no evidence that negative perceptions of the neighbourhood contributed to smoking inequalities. In fully adjusted models, associations between income and smoking were fully attenuated, but an independent association between education and smoking remained. Conclusion: Education and income were related to smoking through partly different pathways. Reducing inequalities in smoking may require a multidimensional approach targeting material and social factors, with strategies targeted towards the individual and the household level.

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

4.5
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