Wenjun Li1, Thomas Land, Zi Zhang, Lois Keithly, Jennifer L Kelsey. 1. Division of Preventive and Behavioral Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Shaw Building, SH2-230, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. wenjun.li@umassmed.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We developed a method to evaluate geographic and temporal variations in community-level risk factors and prevalence estimates, and used that method to identify communities in Massachusetts that should be considered high priority communities for smoking interventions. METHODS: We integrated individual-level data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 1999 to 2005 with community-level data in Massachusetts. We used small-area estimation models to assess the associations of adults' smoking status with both individual- and community-level characteristics and to estimate community-specific smoking prevalence in 398 communities. We classified communities into 8 groups according to their prevalence estimates, the precision of the estimates, and temporal trends. RESULTS: Community-level prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults ranged from 5% to 36% in 2005 and declined in all but 16 (4%) communities between 1999 and 2005. However, less than 15% of the communities met the national prevalence goal of 12% or less. High smoking prevalence remained in communities with lower income, higher percentage of blue-collar workers, and higher density of tobacco outlets. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing communities for intervention can be accomplished through the use of small-area estimation models. In Massachusetts, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have high smoking prevalence rates and should be of high priority to those working to control tobacco use.
OBJECTIVES: We developed a method to evaluate geographic and temporal variations in community-level risk factors and prevalence estimates, and used that method to identify communities in Massachusetts that should be considered high priority communities for smoking interventions. METHODS: We integrated individual-level data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 1999 to 2005 with community-level data in Massachusetts. We used small-area estimation models to assess the associations of adults' smoking status with both individual- and community-level characteristics and to estimate community-specific smoking prevalence in 398 communities. We classified communities into 8 groups according to their prevalence estimates, the precision of the estimates, and temporal trends. RESULTS: Community-level prevalence of current cigarette smoking among adults ranged from 5% to 36% in 2005 and declined in all but 16 (4%) communities between 1999 and 2005. However, less than 15% of the communities met the national prevalence goal of 12% or less. High smoking prevalence remained in communities with lower income, higher percentage of blue-collar workers, and higher density of tobacco outlets. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing communities for intervention can be accomplished through the use of small-area estimation models. In Massachusetts, socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have high smoking prevalence rates and should be of high priority to those working to control tobacco use.
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Mark J Travers; K Michael Cummings; Joseph Bauer; Terry Alford; William F Wieczorek Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: S Shohaimi; R Luben; N Wareham; N Day; S Bingham; A Welch; S Oakes; K-T Khaw Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Yan Cui; Susie B Baldwin; Amy S Lightstone; Margaret Shih; Hongjian Yu; Steven Teutsch Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Elizabeth G Klein; Amy K Ferketich; Mahmoud Abdel-Rasoul; Mei-Po Kwan; Loren Kenda; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-02-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Dustin T Duncan; Ichiro Kawachi; S V Subramanian; Jared Aldstadt; Steven J Melly; David R Williams Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mario Schootman; Min Lian; Anjali D Deshpande; Elizabeth A Baker; Sandi L Pruitt; Rebecca Aft; Donna B Jeffe Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.254