M Siahpush1. 1. VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, The Cancer Council Victoria, 1 Rathdowne Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia. mohammad.siahpush@cancervic.org.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relation between socioeconomic status (SES) and tobacco expenditure among Australian households. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross sectional study (The Household Expenditure Survey 1998-99) by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, based on a multi-stage national sample of 9682 households. PARTICIPANTS: From selected households, all members aged 15 and over were interviewed. MAIN RESULTS: Lower SES was associated with higher odds of reporting tobacco expenditure. Among smoking households, those from lower SES spent more of their funds on tobacco. For example, households headed by a person with no educational qualification spent 34% more on tobacco than those headed by a person with a university degree. Blue collar households spent 23% more than professional households. Percentage of total household expenditure on tobacco in the first income quintile was 62% more than that of households in the fifth quintile. CONCLUSION: Antismoking interventions and policies that are specifically aimed at lower SES groups can potentially improve social equality. They can also ameliorate social inequalities in health, given that much of the SES differentials in morbidity and mortality are attributed to the pronounced SES gradient in smoking.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relation between socioeconomic status (SES) and tobacco expenditure among Australian households. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross sectional study (The Household Expenditure Survey 1998-99) by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, based on a multi-stage national sample of 9682 households. PARTICIPANTS: From selected households, all members aged 15 and over were interviewed. MAIN RESULTS: Lower SES was associated with higher odds of reporting tobacco expenditure. Among smoking households, those from lower SES spent more of their funds on tobacco. For example, households headed by a person with no educational qualification spent 34% more on tobacco than those headed by a person with a university degree. Blue collar households spent 23% more than professional households. Percentage of total household expenditure on tobacco in the first income quintile was 62% more than that of households in the fifth quintile. CONCLUSION: Antismoking interventions and policies that are specifically aimed at lower SES groups can potentially improve social equality. They can also ameliorate social inequalities in health, given that much of the SES differentials in morbidity and mortality are attributed to the pronounced SES gradient in smoking.
Authors: M J Stewart; G Brosky; A Gillis; S Jackson; G Johnston; S Kirkland; G Leigh; B A Pawliw-Fry; V Persaud; I Rootman Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 1996 Jul-Aug
Authors: Peter Franks; Anthony F Jerant; J Paul Leigh; Dennis Lee; Alan Chiem; Ilene Lewis; Sandy Lee Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-08-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Mohammad Siahpush; Paraskevi A Farazi; Shannon I Maloney; Danae Dinkel; Minh N Nguyen; Gopal K Singh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Pramil N Singh; Dawn Washburn; Daravuth Yel; They Kheam; Jayakaran S Job Journal: Asia Pac J Public Health Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 1.399
Authors: Laura H Oostenbach; Karen E Lamb; Fiona Dangerfield; Maartje P Poelman; Stef Kremers; Lukar Thornton Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 4.022