Mohammad Siahpush1, Ron Borland, Michelle Scollo. 1. VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, Cancer Control Research Centre, Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, Carlton. mohammad.siahpush@accv.org.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report smoking prevalence among Australian lone mothers by age and socio-economic group and to examine the extent to which the difference in smoking prevalence between lone mothers and other women is due to socio-economic factors. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from the 1995 National Health Survey (NHS), which was conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Information was collected from 53,800 respondents using face-to-face interviews. This analysis was limited to single mothers (n=1,184) who had at least one dependent child aged under 15. The outcome measure was smoking status, distinguishing regular smokers from occasional smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers. RESULTS: The overall smoking prevalence among lone mothers was 46.3% (Cl 43.5%-49.1%). Lone mothers who were younger, less educated, received government pension/benefits, occupied rental housing or who lived in more disadvantaged areas were more likely to smoke than others. A strong 'lone mother effect' remained after controlling for socio-economic variables. The odds of smoking for lone mothers were 2.4 times greater than for married mothers (95% Cl 2.0-2.9) and twice as large as those for women living alone (95% CI 1.62.4). CONCLUSION: As the prevalence for this population group is considerably higher than the prevalence for other women within each age category, programs to assist lone mothers to quit smoking are a priority for the long-term health of these women and their children. Furthermore, we discuss how policies and interventions that enhance the material conditions and social circumstances of lone mothers can bring about a decline in their smoking prevalence.
OBJECTIVE: To report smoking prevalence among Australian lone mothers by age and socio-economic group and to examine the extent to which the difference in smoking prevalence between lone mothers and other women is due to socio-economic factors. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data from the 1995 National Health Survey (NHS), which was conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Information was collected from 53,800 respondents using face-to-face interviews. This analysis was limited to single mothers (n=1,184) who had at least one dependent child aged under 15. The outcome measure was smoking status, distinguishing regular smokers from occasional smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers. RESULTS: The overall smoking prevalence among lone mothers was 46.3% (Cl 43.5%-49.1%). Lone mothers who were younger, less educated, received government pension/benefits, occupied rental housing or who lived in more disadvantaged areas were more likely to smoke than others. A strong 'lone mother effect' remained after controlling for socio-economic variables. The odds of smoking for lone mothers were 2.4 times greater than for married mothers (95% Cl 2.0-2.9) and twice as large as those for women living alone (95% CI 1.62.4). CONCLUSION: As the prevalence for this population group is considerably higher than the prevalence for other women within each age category, programs to assist lone mothers to quit smoking are a priority for the long-term health of these women and their children. Furthermore, we discuss how policies and interventions that enhance the material conditions and social circumstances of lone mothers can bring about a decline in their smoking prevalence.
Authors: Billie Bonevski; Christine Paul; Catherine D'Este; Robert Sanson-Fisher; Robert West; Afaf Girgis; Mohammad Siahpush; Robert Carter Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Emily O'Halloran; Amit Shah; Lawrence Dembo; Livia Hool; Helena Viola; Christine Grey; James Boyd; Tomas O'Neill; Fiona Wood; Janine Duke; Mark Fear Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Marek Milcarz; Kinga Polańska; Leokadia Bak-Romaniszyn; Dorota Kaleta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-09-07 Impact factor: 3.390