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

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 L i fe in an Urban Setting study in the Netherlands were analysed. Poisson regression models with a robust variance were used... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Brathwaite, Rachel
Smeeth, Liam
Addo, Juliet
Kunst, Anton E
Peters, Ron J G
Snijder, Marieke B
Derks, Eske M
Agyemang, Charles
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2017
Reihe/Periodikum: BMJ Open ; volume 7, issue 7, page e016041 ; ISSN 2044-6055 2044-6055
Verlag/Hrsg.: BMJ
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-28780332
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016041

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 L i fe 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.