Drug and alcohol review · 2012
Socio-economic disadvantage at the area level poses few direct barriers to smoking cessation for Australian smokers: findings from the International Tobacco Control Australian cohort survey.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Partos Timea R, Borland Ron, Siahpush Mohammad
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Area-level indicators of socio-economic variation are frequently included in models of individual health outcomes. Area disadvantage is linearly related to smoking prevalence, but its relation to cessation outcomes is less well understood.
AIMS: To explore the relationship between area-level disadvantage and prospective data on smoking cessation.
DESIGN AND METHODS: The Australian cohort of the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey (N = 3503) was used to prospectively examine the contribution of area-level socio-economic disadvantage to predicting three important smoking-cessation outcomes: making a quit attempt, achieving 1 month abstinence and achieving 6 month abstinence from smoking, while controlling for individual-level socio-economic indicators and other individual-level covariates related to smoking cessation.
RESULTS: Only two independent associations were observed between socio-economic disadvantage and cessation outcomes. Area-level disadvantage was related to 1 month abstinence in a non-linear fashion, and the individual experience of smoking-induced deprivation was associated with a lower likelihood of making quit attempts.
DISCUSSION: Despite the documented higher prevalence of smoking among the more disadvantaged and in more disadvantaged areas, socio-economic disadvantage was not consistently related to making quit attempts, nor to medium-term success. Nevertheless, indirect effects of disadvantage, like its impact on psychological distress, cannot be ruled out, and considering smokers' individual psychosocial circumstances is likely to aid cessation efforts.
CONCLUSION: Socio-economic disadvantage, particularly at the area level, poses few direct barriers to smoking cessation.
AIMS: To explore the relationship between area-level disadvantage and prospective data on smoking cessation.
DESIGN AND METHODS: The Australian cohort of the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey (N = 3503) was used to prospectively examine the contribution of area-level socio-economic disadvantage to predicting three important smoking-cessation outcomes: making a quit attempt, achieving 1 month abstinence and achieving 6 month abstinence from smoking, while controlling for individual-level socio-economic indicators and other individual-level covariates related to smoking cessation.
RESULTS: Only two independent associations were observed between socio-economic disadvantage and cessation outcomes. Area-level disadvantage was related to 1 month abstinence in a non-linear fashion, and the individual experience of smoking-induced deprivation was associated with a lower likelihood of making quit attempts.
DISCUSSION: Despite the documented higher prevalence of smoking among the more disadvantaged and in more disadvantaged areas, socio-economic disadvantage was not consistently related to making quit attempts, nor to medium-term success. Nevertheless, indirect effects of disadvantage, like its impact on psychological distress, cannot be ruled out, and considering smokers' individual psychosocial circumstances is likely to aid cessation efforts.
CONCLUSION: Socio-economic disadvantage, particularly at the area level, poses few direct barriers to smoking cessation.