TY - JOUR
T1 - Ethnic differences in current smoking and former smoking in the Netherlands and the contribution of socioeconomic factors: a cross-sectional analysis of the HELIUS study
AU - Brathwaite, Rachel
AU - Smeeth, Liam
AU - Addo, Juliet
AU - Kunst, Anton E.
AU - Peters, Ron J. G.
AU - Snijder, Marieke B.
AU - Derks, Eske M.
AU - Agyemang, Charles
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - Objectives Data exploring how much of the ethnic differences in smoking prevalence and former smoking are explained by socioeconomic status (SES) are lacking. We therefore assessed ethnic differences in smoking prevalence and former smoking and the contribution of both educational level and occupational-related SES to the observed ethnic differences in smoking behaviour. Methods Data of 22 929 participants (aged 18-70 years) from the multiethnic cross-sectional Healthy Life in an Urban Setting study in the Netherlands were analysed. Poisson regression models with a robust variance were used to estimate prevalence ratios. Results Compared with the Dutch, after adjustment for age and marital status, smoking prevalence was higher in men of Turkish (prevalence ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.54 to 1.86), African Surinamese (1.55, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.69) and South-Asian Surinamese origin (1.53, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.68), whereas among women, smoking prevalence was higher in Turkish, similar in African Surinamese but lower in all other ethnic origin groups. All ethnic minority groups, except Ghanaians, had a significantly lower smoking cessation prevalence than the Dutch. Socioeconomic gradients in smoking (higher prevalence among those lower educated and with lower level employment) were observed in all groups except Ghanaian women (a higher prevalence was observed in the higher educated). Ethnic differences in smoking prevalence and former smoking are largely, but not completely, explained by socioeconomic factors. Conclusions Our findings imply that antismoking policies designed to target smoking within the lower socioeconomic groups of ethnic minority populations may substantially reduce ethnic inequalities in smoking particularly among men and that certain groups may benefit from targeted smoking cessation interventions
AB - Objectives Data exploring how much of the ethnic differences in smoking prevalence and former smoking are explained by socioeconomic status (SES) are lacking. We therefore assessed ethnic differences in smoking prevalence and former smoking and the contribution of both educational level and occupational-related SES to the observed ethnic differences in smoking behaviour. Methods Data of 22 929 participants (aged 18-70 years) from the multiethnic cross-sectional Healthy Life in an Urban Setting study in the Netherlands were analysed. Poisson regression models with a robust variance were used to estimate prevalence ratios. Results Compared with the Dutch, after adjustment for age and marital status, smoking prevalence was higher in men of Turkish (prevalence ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.54 to 1.86), African Surinamese (1.55, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.69) and South-Asian Surinamese origin (1.53, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.68), whereas among women, smoking prevalence was higher in Turkish, similar in African Surinamese but lower in all other ethnic origin groups. All ethnic minority groups, except Ghanaians, had a significantly lower smoking cessation prevalence than the Dutch. Socioeconomic gradients in smoking (higher prevalence among those lower educated and with lower level employment) were observed in all groups except Ghanaian women (a higher prevalence was observed in the higher educated). Ethnic differences in smoking prevalence and former smoking are largely, but not completely, explained by socioeconomic factors. Conclusions Our findings imply that antismoking policies designed to target smoking within the lower socioeconomic groups of ethnic minority populations may substantially reduce ethnic inequalities in smoking particularly among men and that certain groups may benefit from targeted smoking cessation interventions
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016041
DO - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016041
M3 - Article
C2 - 28698339
SN - 2044-6055
VL - 7
JO - BMJ Open
JF - BMJ Open
IS - 7
M1 - e016041
ER -