Frank J van Lenthe1, Johan P Mackenbach. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Centre Rotterdam, Netherlands. f.vanlenthe@erasmusmc.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between physical neighbourhood stressors and smoking, and the contribution of these stressors to neighbourhood and individual socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. METHODS: Data were analysed of participants of the baseline measurement of the Dutch GLOBE study (1991), aged 20 years and older, who lived in 79 neighbourhoods of the city of Eindhoven (n = 9062). The neighbourhood socioeconomic environment was assessed from aggregated self reported information of participants' education and occupation level, and employment status. Neighbourhood stressors included were the physical quality (decay), required police attention, noise pollution from traffic, and population density in neighbourhoods. Current smokers were distinguished from previous and never smokers. RESULTS: Compared with those living in the most advantaged neighbourhoods, residents living in the socioeconomically most disadvantaged neighbourhoods were more likely to smoke (adjusted for age, sex, education, occupation, and employment status) (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46). An increase in a summary neighbourhood stressor score was associated with smoking, independently of the neighbourhood socioeconomic environment (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.21, in the neighbourhoods with the highest stress score). Adjustment for the score substantially reduced the odds ratio for living in the socioeconomic most disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.28, for those in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods). Neighbourhood stressors contributed 10% to the increased probability of smoking in the lowest educated persons. CONCLUSIONS: Physical neighbourhood stressors are related to smoking and contribute substantially to neighbourhood inequalities in smoking over and above individual level characteristics.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between physical neighbourhood stressors and smoking, and the contribution of these stressors to neighbourhood and individual socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. METHODS: Data were analysed of participants of the baseline measurement of the Dutch GLOBE study (1991), aged 20 years and older, who lived in 79 neighbourhoods of the city of Eindhoven (n = 9062). The neighbourhood socioeconomic environment was assessed from aggregated self reported information of participants' education and occupation level, and employment status. Neighbourhood stressors included were the physical quality (decay), required police attention, noise pollution from traffic, and population density in neighbourhoods. Current smokers were distinguished from previous and never smokers. RESULTS: Compared with those living in the most advantaged neighbourhoods, residents living in the socioeconomically most disadvantaged neighbourhoods were more likely to smoke (adjusted for age, sex, education, occupation, and employment status) (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46). An increase in a summary neighbourhood stressor score was associated with smoking, independently of the neighbourhood socioeconomic environment (OR = 1.57, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.21, in the neighbourhoods with the highest stress score). Adjustment for the score substantially reduced the odds ratio for living in the socioeconomic most disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.28, for those in the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods). Neighbourhood stressors contributed 10% to the increased probability of smoking in the lowest educated persons. CONCLUSIONS: Physical neighbourhood stressors are related to smoking and contribute substantially to neighbourhood inequalities in smoking over and above individual level characteristics.
Authors: Darla E Kendzor; Lorraine R Reitzel; Carlos A Mazas; Ludmila M Cofta-Woerpel; Yumei Cao; Lingyun Ji; Tracy J Costello; Jennifer Irvin Vidrine; Michael S Businelle; Yisheng Li; Yessenia Castro; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Paul M Cinciripini; David W Wetter Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Yuriy Ignatyev; Marat Assimov; Dauren Dochshanov; Andreas Ströhle; Andreas Heinz; Adrian P Mundt Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2013-05-28
Authors: Nancy L Fleischer; James F Thrasher; Belén Sáenz de Miera Juárez; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Amira Osman; Mohammad Siahpush; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Nico Dragano; Barbara Hoffmann; Andreas Stang; Susanne Moebus; Pablo E Verde; Simone Weyers; Stefan Möhlenkamp; Axel Schmermund; Klaus Mann; Karl-Heinz Jöckel; Raimund Erbel; Johannes Siegrist Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 8.082
Authors: Katherine M Keyes; John E Schulenberg; Patrick M O'Malley; Lloyd D Johnston; Jerald G Bachman; Guohua Li; Deborah Hasin Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2012-12
Authors: Wonhyung Lee; Andrew Grogan-Kaylor; Guillermo Sanhueza; Fernando Andrade; Jorge Delva Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Rajalakshmi Lakshman; Anne McConville; Simon How; Julian Flowers; Nicholas Wareham; Paul Cosford Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: Jaana I Halonen; Anna Pulakka; Sari Stenholm; Jaana Pentti; Ichiro Kawachi; Mika Kivimäki; Jussi Vahtera Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 4.822