Deakin Health Economics, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2022 Sep 8;22(1):1706. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14083-y.
Countries with best practice tobacco control measures have experienced significant reductions in smoking prevalence, but socioeconomic inequalities remain. Spending on tobacco products, particularly by low-income groups can negatively affect expenditure on other goods and services. This study aims to compare the household expenditure of adults who smoke tobacco products and those who formerly smoked across socioeconomic groups.
Daily smokers and ex-smokers were compared using the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, over 7 waves. Adults who never smoked were not included. Participants were continuing sample members across waves. Mean number of participants per wave was 2505, 25% were smokers and 75% ex-smokers. The expenditure variables investigated included tobacco products, alcohol, motor vehicle fuel, health practitioners, insurance, education, and meals eaten out. Regression models using the generalized estimating equation technique were employed to compare expenditure data aggregated across the waves by Socioeconomic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintiles of relative socio-economic advantage/disadvantage while accounting for within-participant autocorrelation. Quintiles are ranked by information such as the income, occupation and access to material and social resources of the residents.
Smokers from all quintiles spent significantly less per year on meals out, education and insurance than ex-smokers (p < 0.001). Smokers from quintiles 2-5 spent less on groceries, medicines, and health practitioners (p < 0.01). Smokers from quintiles 1 and 2 (most disadvantaged), spent less on motor vehicle fuel than ex-smokers ($280;95%CI: $126-$434), ($213;95%CI: $82-$344). Smokers from quintiles 2 and 3 spent more on alcohol ($212;95%CI: $86-$339), ($231.8;95%CI: $94-$370) than ex-smokers. Smokers from the least disadvantaged groups spent less on clothing than ex-smokers ($348;95%CI: $476-$221), ($501; 95%CI: $743-$258). Across the whole sample, smokers spent more than ex-smokers on alcohol ($230;95%CI:$95-$365) and less on meals out ($361;95%CI:$216-$379), groceries ($529;95%CI:$277-$781), education ($456;95%CI:$288-$624), medicine ($71;95%CI:$38-$104), health practitioners ($345;95%CI:$245-$444) and insurance ($318;95%CI:$229-$407).
Smoking cessation leads to reallocation of spending across all socioeconomic groups, which could have positive impacts on households and their local communities. Less spending on alcohol by ex-smokers across the whole sample could indicate a joint health improvement associated with smoking cessation.
实施最佳实践控烟措施的国家,吸烟率显著下降,但社会经济不平等仍然存在。烟草产品的支出,特别是低收入群体的支出,可能会对其他商品和服务的支出产生负面影响。本研究旨在比较不同社会经济群体中吸烟和曾经吸烟的成年人的家庭支出。
使用澳大利亚家庭、收入和劳动力动态调查(HILDA)的数据,对每天吸烟和曾经吸烟的成年人进行了 7 波比较。从不吸烟的成年人不包括在内。参与者是各波次的持续样本成员。每一波次的平均参与者人数为 2505 人,25%为吸烟者,75%为曾经吸烟者。调查的支出变量包括烟草产品、酒精、机动车燃料、医疗保健从业人员、保险、教育和外出就餐。使用广义估计方程技术的回归模型,在考虑到参与者内部自相关的情况下,根据相对社会经济优势/劣势的社会经济地位指数(SEIFA)五分位数,对跨波次汇总的支出数据进行了比较。五分位数根据居民的收入、职业以及获得物质和社会资源的情况进行排名。
所有五分位数的吸烟者每年在外就餐、教育和保险方面的支出都明显低于曾经吸烟者(p<0.001)。五分位数 2-5 的吸烟者在食品杂货、药品和医疗保健从业人员方面的支出较少(p<0.01)。五分位数 1 和 2(最贫困)的吸烟者在机动车燃料上的支出比曾经吸烟者少($280;95%CI:$126-$434)($213;95%CI:$82-$344)。五分位数 2 和 3 的吸烟者在酒精上的支出比曾经吸烟者多($212;95%CI:$86-$339)($231.8;95%CI:$94-$370)。来自最不贫困群体的吸烟者在服装上的支出低于曾经吸烟者($348;95%CI:$476-$221)($501;95%CI:$743-$258)。在整个样本中,吸烟者在酒精上的支出高于曾经吸烟者($230;95%CI:$95-$365),在外就餐的支出较少($361;95%CI:$216-$379),食品杂货支出较多($529;95%CI:$277-$781),教育支出较多($456;95%CI:$288-$624),药品支出较少($71;95%CI:$38-$104),医疗保健从业人员支出较多($345;95%CI:$245-$444),保险支出较少($318;95%CI:$229-$407)。
戒烟会导致所有社会经济群体的支出重新分配,这可能对家庭及其所在社区产生积极影响。整个样本中,曾经吸烟者在酒精上的支出减少,可能表明与戒烟相关的联合健康状况改善。