Position statement - Tobacco related disparities

From National Cancer Control Policy
Tobacco control > Position statement - Tobacco related disparities

Export options


Home > Position statement - Tobacco related disparities

Overview   Impact   Link   Policy context   Effective interventions   Policy priorities   Position statements
Position statement banner - Tobacco related disparities.png

Position statement - Tobacco related disparities


"There is a lot of death and suffering ahead of us, but it will be concentrated among those already suffering the most"

– Professor Ron Borland[1]

Key messages and recommendations

  • While smoking rates across Australia have declined substantially to around 17.5% of the population, among the most disadvantaged groups they are up to five times higher than the population average.
  • The most disadvantaged groups in Australia bear a disproportionate share of tobacco-related harm. Reducing smoking rates in these populations is an important and pressing public health issue.
  • Sustained population-wide tobacco control strategies must be supported by specific interventions targeting disadvantaged populations in order to maximise reach and effectiveness among these groups.
  • Effective strategies require a combination of applying best current evidence with being open to exploring the effectiveness of new strategies.
  • The development of partnerships between tobacco control public health experts and community-based organisations working with targeted populations will help to develop capacity within these organisations to address specific tobacco-related issues, create quit-friendly service environments and integrate attention to smoking into routine practice.
  • Obtaining better data on smoking prevalence trends among disadvantaged groups and monitoring progress in this space are integral to reducing disparities in tobacco use. It is critically important that interventions are underpinned by financial support for evaluation of appropriateness and effectiveness.

Back to top

Background

While much progress has been made in reducing smoking rates in Australia over the past decades, rates of smoking remain high among people facing multiple disadvantage and challenges. The most disadvantaged groups in Australia include people who, in addition to low income, face a number of other difficulties such as mental illness, sole parenthood, unemployment, domestic violence, homelessness, drug and alcohol problems, criminal justice issues, limited education, and social isolation. These issues often overlap and their effects are compounded.

Smoking rates across Australia have declined substantially to around 17.5% of adults smoking weekly or more often[2], however among the most disadvantaged groups smoking rates are up to five times higher than the population average[3]. A range of Australian studies indicate high smoking rates among groups such as: single parents (37%)[2], lone mothers 18–29 years of age (59%)[4], people living with psychosis (66%)[5], at-risk young people (63%)[6], Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (47%)[7], people with drug disorders (73%)[8], the homeless (73%)[9], intravenous drug users (90%)[3], and prisoners (85%)[10]. Many of the most disadvantaged smokers will belong to more than one of these groups.

Back to top

Links between smoking and disadvantage

Disadvantage is associated with smoking; increased disadvantage is associated with increased smoking prevalence[11].

Many factors across the life course can combine to embed smoking in the lives of disadvantaged people[12][13]. Research has shown that individual dimensions of disadvantage contribute independently to the likelihood of being a smoker and to reduce the odds of quitting. For example, women in the UK were at increased odds of being a heavy smoker if they experienced childhood disadvantage, left school aged 16 or less, were a mother at age 22 or younger, or if they experienced severe disadvantage as an adult[13].

In addition the relationship between smoking and disadvantage has been shown to be cumulative, that is as the number of experiences of disadvantage accrue smoking rates increase[11][13][14]. Table 1 maps this association between disadvantage trajectories and smoking status.


Table 1. Cumulative disadvantage and smoking status

Sample Number Ever smoked
(%)
Current smoker
(%)
Heavy smoker
(% of current smokers)
Former smoker
(% of ever smokers)
Childhood disadvantage 3800 51.6 35.9 49.6 30.4
Plus left full time education ≤ 16 2081 61 44.1 53.3 27.7
Plus a mother at age ≤ 22 744 70.3 54.6 57.1 22.4
Plus adult disadvantage 405 75.6 62.5 56.1 17.3
None of these disadvantages 3614 33.3 18.3 34.5 45.1

This table describes smoking rates in women, aged 22-34, England, 1998-2002, n=9936. Each row denotes cumulative disadvantage, incorporating the dimension(s) of disadvantage in the rows above.
Source: Adapted from Graham et al. 2006[13]

Back to top

Tobacco burden among disadvantaged populations

The additional burdens imposed by smoking are felt most keenly by those already experiencing disadvantage. Those who are already disadvantaged already bear a disproportionate share of the burden of death and disease caused by tobacco[15][16]. Furthermore, the differentials in smoking rates contribute to widening health, financial and quality of life inequities in our community[12][17][18].

Smoking is a major contributor to the differences in mortality between the least and most advantaged[19]. International research has shown that smoking accounts for more than half the difference in mortality between men in the top and bottom social strata[19]. Disparities in health status between Indigenous Australians and the total population account for 59% of the total burden of disease for Indigenous Australians[20]. Smoking accounts for 17% of this health gap, making it the primary risk factor contributing to health disparities in Indigenous Australians[20]. Unless we address smoking disparities, health inequality will persist[21].

In addition to health impacts, tobacco contributes to poverty and disadvantage through the cost of tobacco-related illness, loss of family breadwinner, impact on family stress and finances, and the impact on children’s education and employment opportunities[22]. Spending on tobacco products, school absence and loss of income due to smoking-related illness reduces the capacity of a household to accumulate assets such as a family home, to insure against losses, to save for financial requirements in retirement and to pass on assets to the next generation, contributing to financial inequalities further[23].

Tobacco exacerbates the impact of poverty by reducing funds available to cover food, clothing and stable housing[24][25][26][27]. Households that smoke are three times more likely to experience severe financial stress and report going without meals and being unable to heat the home than non-smoking households[28]. Children in smoking households are twice as likely to experience food insecurity and three times as likely to experience severe food insecurity than children in non-smoking households[25]. In the lowest-income households, expenditure on tobacco products as a proportion of total household weekly expenditure is over double that in the highest income households[29].

In addition, higher smoking prevalence among adults in lower socio-economic families is associated with higher uptake of smoking among children from these families[22]. This continues the cycle of financial stress and ill health from tobacco use into the next generation.

Back to top

Environmental drivers

Disadvantaged groups experience multiple drivers to smoke and magnified barriers to quitting. People from disadvantaged groups are more likely to be in environments where smoking is the norm and where little support is provided for quit attempts[18]. Compared to others in the community, they are more likely to be around others who smoke, smoke a greater number of cigarettes and smoke for longer periods of time[26][30].

Smoking can be used as a coping mechanism among the lives of people experiencing multiple disadvantage. It is often seen to help deal with difficult and stressful situations such as financial pressure, living in unsafe environments, being a single parent, and limited opportunities for enjoyment and recreation[31][32][33].

A range of factors reinforce smoking and present barriers to quitting in people facing multiple disadvantage, including:

  • heavier nicotine dependence[12];
  • experiencing financial stress[26];
  • having friends and family who smoke and living in communities with a high prevalence of smoking[34][35];
  • facing multiple daily stressors for which smoking is seen as a means of coping[32];
  • lack of support for quitting among family and friends[30][34];
  • being unaware of, or having misconceptions about, available cessation services[31][36];
  • lower levels of confidence in their ability to stop smoking[37];
  • regarding smoking as their ‘only pleasure’[32][34][38]; and
  • specific marketing by tobacco companies[39][40][41].

While all smokers may experience these factors to some extent, their impact is magnified for the most disadvantaged. Given their collective impact, these factors suggest disadvantaged smokers may need greater support to quit than those people experiencing less disadvantage[42]. Disadvantaged smokers are as interested in quitting as other smokers, but are less likely to succeed without further assistance[43][44][45].

Back to top

Effective strategies targeting disadvantaged groups

A combination of strategies is required to effectively reduce smoking among the most disadvantaged population groups. Established whole-of-population approaches must be coupled with targeted strategies and emerging promising approaches to reach these groups.

Back to top

Population-wide strategies

Research demonstrates that tobacco price increases[46][47][48], advertisements containing highly emotional elements or personal stories[49], increasing the level of TV advertising[50], and the extension of smoke-free policies from restaurants to pubs[51] are reported to have a strong impact on smokers in lower socio-economic groups, resulting in reductions in tobacco use and increased calls to Quitline. Importantly, population-wide strategies reduce uptake and experimentation of smoking among all adolescents, but in particular adolescents from low socio-economic groups. During a period of low tobacco-control funding and activity (1992–1996) smoking prevalence increased among 12–15 year olds, with the greatest increase among lower socio-economic groups[52].

While population-based tobacco control approaches have demonstrated effectiveness among smokers from low socio-economic groups, there is increasing recognition that more targeted strategies are required to reach the most disadvantaged population groups.

Back to top

Community-based interventions

Research shows that integrating smoking cessation support in social and community organisations already working with disadvantaged groups has been effective in decreasing smoking rates[53][54]. Social and community service organisations have regular and long-term contact with clients, concern for client wellbeing, and skills in supporting behavioural change which make them well suited to provide smoking cessation to their clients[30][55][56][57]. Recommended approaches include reviewing and revising organisational policies, supporting staff to quit, changing practices to de-normalise smoking, making more active quit support for clients part of routine care, and changing systems to record and monitor smoking status[58]. This approach should be applied within both non-government and government social and community services whose clients have high smoking rates, such as prisons, mental health facilities, drug and alcohol services, family services, and homeless shelters[34].

Back to top

Improving access to cessation aids

Encouraging better use of existing services and treatments by low income groups shows potential for reducing tobacco related inequalities.

Quitting medications are effective in smokers with high nicotine dependence and when subsided or free, are increasingly used by disadvantaged smokers[59][60]. Evidence demonstrates that the chances of quitting successfully are increased when using quitting medications in combination with a quit counselling service[61]. However, both the cost and the time it takes to access subsidised pharmacotherapies can act as an obstacle to their use by the most disadvantaged[30][31][62]. Alternative systems, such as provision of free Nicotine Replacement Therapy directly through social and community services, or pharmacists, should be explored.

Encouraging better use of existing quit services can be achieved through promoting direct referrals from social and community organisations and delivering cessation support that is sensitive to the diverse needs of different population groups. For example, people from disadvantaged groups have expressed that they want information and practical support to quit smoking but want it delivered in a way that recognises the role of smoking in their lives and in the other issues they are facing[32][35]. Key elements of effective cessation approaches with disadvantaged population groups include: a non-judgemental, holistic and empowering approach; provision of social support; flexibility and accessibility; and well trained staff[63].

Back to top

Utilising financial incentives

There is growing evidence for incentive-based programs in the UK and US as a way to change unhealthy behaviours including smoking[64]. Financial incentives have been used in smoking cessation initiatives to encourage participation and to support the quitting process including rewarding cessation[65][66].

Research shows high acceptance of monetary and non-monetary rewards as a smoking cessation strategy among disadvantaged groups[67][68][69], that financial incentives rewarding participation increase recruitment rates (which may in turn be expected to deliver higher numbers of successful quitters)[65][70], and has increased quit rates among pregnant women in disadvantaged groups (increasing abstinence more than three-fold)[66].

Reviews conclude that financial incentives can be effective in promoting behaviour change (i.e. prompting people to quit smoking and to use evidence-based treatment). Further research is required to develop the evidence base in relation to long-term cessation and the practicalities of implementing financial incentives[64][65][70].

Other areas to explore further include: how to implement financial incentive schemes for promoting smoking cessation within the Australian context, the merits of cash payments versus payments in kind (e.g. grocery vouchers), the most effective type and size of incentives, maintaining incentives to achieve cessation in the long term, and efficacy in different population groups[65][70].

Back to top

Supporting social and economic policies

Macro level policies that reduce poverty, enhance family functioning, reduce childhood adversity, improve housing, provide access to quality education and provide access to stable employment have an impact on smoking prevalence as they reduce the negative social conditions that are associated with higher smoking rates and dependence[13][71][72]. Leaders in tobacco control and public health should work together with those in the community sector calling for progressive social policies.

Back to top

Building the evidence

It is important to note current surveys and monitoring tools are not adequately capturing or monitoring smoking rates in disadvantaged populations in Australia and trend data is not routinely collected for these groups. Population based surveys do not capture, for example, people who are homeless, without phone access, who are living in mental health facilities, or who are mentally or physically unable to respond to surveys. Although there is a growing body of smoking prevalence data available for specific disadvantaged groups, this information is often incomplete and discontinuous. Improvements in our data collection systems are required to establish reliable prevalence and to measure prevalence rates over time and could be achieved by adding to existing surveillance tools and mining other databases that are currently underutilised.

Investment in research and evaluation is essential to monitor the impact of our strategies and to add to the evidence base. There are complexities in devising and delivering programs that effectively address smoking among disadvantaged groups. Therefore it is critical that programs include mechanisms to evaluate and assess their effect.

Back to top

Recommendations

The serious health, social and financial harm caused by smoking among our most disadvantaged population groups cannot be ignored. The disparities in smoking rates within the community must be considered a social justice issue[18]. Reducing smoking among disadvantaged populations should be a priority. To achieve this goal Cancer Council Australia recommends investment in a range of strategies including:

  • maintenance of ‘whole of population’ approaches to reduce uptake and encourage cessation such as legislation and regulation, limiting access to tobacco, increased taxation, and comprehensive and sustained mass media campaigns;
  • the introduction of comprehensive policies to address smoking and active quit support for clients and staff within government and non-government social and community services working with disadvantaged populations;
  • improved access to quit counselling and affordable pharmacotherapies including all types of Nicotine Replacement Therapy;
  • investigating the effectiveness and practicality of financial incentives in promoting smoking cessation in disadvantaged groups;
  • adoption of progressive social policies to reduce the social inequalities in which smoking disparities are embedded; and
  • investment in appropriate research and evaluation to build the evidence base around what works in addressing tobacco in disadvantaged populations. This includes investment in improved monitoring and surveillance of smoking prevalence, analysis of disparities between population groups and continued exploration for new strategies.

Back to top


References

  1. Borland R. Challenges to tobacco control as an increasing proportion of smokers are disadvantaged. In: Oceania Tobacco Control Conference. Oceania Tobacco Control Conference Brisbane, QLD; 2011.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2010 National drug strategy household survey report. Canberra: AIHW; 2011 Jul. Report No.: Drug statistics series no. 25. Cat. no. PHE 145. Available from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737421139&libID=10737421138.
  3. 3.0 3.1 Stafford J, Burns LA. Australian drug trends 2010: findings from the illicit drug reporting system (IDRS). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre; 2011.
  4. Siahpush M, Borland R, Scollo M. Prevalence and socio-economic correlates of smoking among lone mothers in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 2002 Apr;26(2):132-5 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12054331.
  5. Morgan VA, Waterreus A, Jablensky A, Mackinnon A, McGrath JJ, Carr V, et al. People living with psychotic illness 2010: report on the second Australian national survey. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011.
  6. Youthblock Health and Resource Service. Smoking survey 2007. Sydney: YHRS; 2010.
  7. Australian Bureau of Statistics. National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social survey, 2008. Canberra: ABS; 2009. Report No.: 4714.0.
  8. Lawrence D, Mitrou F, Zubrick SR. Smoking and mental illness: results from population surveys in Australia and the United States. BMC Public Health 2009 Aug 7;9:285 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19664203.
  9. Kermode M, Crofts N, Miller P, Speed B, Streeton J. Health indicators and risks among people experiencing homelessness in Melbourne, 1995-1996. Aust N Z J Public Health 1998 Jun;22(4):464-70 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9659774.
  10. Butler T, Papanastasiou C. National prison entrants' bloodborne virus and risk behaviour survey report 2004-2007. Perth: Curtin University; 2008.
  11. 11.0 11.1 Sharma A, Lewis S, Szatkowski L. Insights into social disparities in smoking prevalence using Mosaic, a novel measure of socioeconomic status: an analysis using a large primary care dataset. BMC Public Health 2010 Dec 7;10:755 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21138555.
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 Jarvis M, Wardle J. Social patterning of individual health behaviours: the case of cigarette smoking. In: Marmot M, Wilkinson R. Social determinants of health. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. p. 225-37.
  13. 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 Graham H, Inskip HM, Francis B, Harman J. Pathways of disadvantage and smoking careers: evidence and policy implications. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006 Sep;60 Suppl 2:7-12 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708005.
  14. Ensminger ME, Smith KC, Juon HS, Pearson JL, Robertson JA. Women, smoking, and social disadvantage over the life course: a longitudinal study of African American women. Drug Alcohol Depend 2009 Oct 1;104 Suppl 1:S34-41 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19616387.
  15. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. National drug strategy 2010-2015: a framework for action on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, 2011. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011 Available from: http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/Publishing.nsf/content/DB4076D49F13309FCA257854007BAF30/$File/nds2015.pdf.
  16. Tobias M, Cheung J. Inhaling inequality: tobacco’s contribution to health inequality in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2011 Oct. Report No.: Public Health Intelligence Occasional Bulletin No 7. Available from: http://www.moh.govt.nz/notebook/nbbooks.nsf/0/acc8ed9d8b8c4344cc256af6000ba5a3/$FILE/InhalingInequality.pdf.
  17. Lawrence D, Mitrou F, Zubrick SR. Global research neglect of population-based approaches to smoking cessation: time for a more rigorous science of population health interventions. Addiction 2011 Sep;106(9):1549-54 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21631619.
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Voigt K. Smoking and social justice. Public Health Ethics 2010;3(2):91-106 Abstract available at http://phe.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/2/91.abstract.
  19. 19.0 19.1 Jha P, Peto R, Zatonski W, Boreham J, Jarvis MJ, Lopez AD. Social inequalities in male mortality, and in male mortality from smoking: indirect estimation from national death rates in England and Wales, Poland, and North America. Lancet 2006 Jul 29;368(9533):367-70 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16876664.
  20. 20.0 20.1 Vos T, Barker B, Begg S, Stanley L, Lopez AD. Burden of disease and injury in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: the Indigenous health gap. Int J Epidemiol 2009 Apr;38(2):470-7 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19047078.
  21. Gruer L, Hart CL, Gordon DS, Watt GC. Effect of tobacco smoking on survival of men and women by social position: a 28 year cohort study. BMJ 2009 Feb 17;338:b480 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19224884.
  22. 22.0 22.1 Scollo MM, Winstanley MH. Tobacco in Australia: facts and issues. 4th edn. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2012 Available from: http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/.
  23. Siahpush M, Borland R, Scollo M. Is household smoking status associated with expenditure on food at restaurants, alcohol, gambling and insurance? Results from the 1998-99 Household Expenditure Survey, Australia. Tob Control 2004 Dec;13(4):409-14 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15564627.
  24. Armour B, Pitts M, Lee CW. Cigarette smoking and food insecurity among low-income families in the United States, 2001. Atlanta, Georgia: Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta; 2008. Report No.: Working paper no. 2007-19. Sponsored by Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Available from: http://ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedawp/2007-19.html.
  25. 25.0 25.1 Cutler-Triggs C, Fryer GE, Miyoshi TJ, Weitzman M. Increased rates and severity of child and adult food insecurity in households with adult smokers. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008 Nov;162(11):1056-62 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18981354.
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 Siahpush M. Socioeconomic status and tobacco expenditure among Australian households: results from the 1998-99 Household Expenditure Survey. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003 Oct;57(10):798-801 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14573585.
  27. Graham H. When life's a drag: women, smoking and disadvantage. London, UK: Department of Health; 1993.
  28. Siahpush M, Borland R, Scollo M. Smoking and financial stress. Tob Control 2003 Mar;12(1):60-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12612364.
  29. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Household expenditure survey and survey of income and housing: summary of results, 2009-10. Canberra: ABS; 2011 Sep 6. Report No.: 6503.0. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6530.0Explanatory%20Notes12009-10?OpenDocument.
  30. 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 Bryant J, Bonevski B, Paul C, O'Brien J, Oakes W. Developing cessation interventions for the social and community service setting: a qualitative study of barriers to quitting among disadvantaged Australian smokers. BMC Public Health 2011 Jun 24;11:493 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21699730.
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 Ross S, Vittles P. Supports to quit smoking for NGO clients and workers: final report prepared by Urbis Keys Young for Cancer Council NSW. Wooloomooloo: Cancer Council NSW; 2007.
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 Stewart MJ, Brosky G, Gillis A, Jackson S, Johnston G, Kirkland S, et al. Disadvantaged women and smoking. Can J Public Health 1996 Jul;87(4):257-60 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8870305.
  33. Copeland L. An exploration of the problems faced by young women living in disadvantaged circumstances if they want to give up smoking: can more be done at general practice level? Fam Pract 2003 Aug;20(4):393-400 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12876109.
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 MacAskill S, Stead M, MacKintosh AM, Hastings G. "You cannae just take cigarettes away from somebody and no' gie them something back": can social marketing help solve the problem of low-income smoking? Social Marketing Quarterly 2002 Mar;8:19-34 Abstract available at http://smq.sagepub.com/content/8/1/19.abstract.
  35. 35.0 35.1 Lacey LP, Manfredi C, Balch G, Warnecke RB, Allen K, Edwards C. Social support in smoking cessation among black women in Chicago public housing. Public Health Rep 1993 May;108(3):387-94 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8497578.
  36. Roddy E, Antoniak M, Britton J, Molyneux A, Lewis S. Barriers and motivators to gaining access to smoking cessation services amongst deprived smokers--a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2006 Nov 6;6:147 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17087825.
  37. Connor SE, Cook RL, Herbert MI, Neal SM, Williams JT. Smoking cessation in a homeless population: there is a will, but is there a way? J Gen Intern Med 2002 May;17(5):369-72 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12047734.
  38. Marsh A. Tax and spend: a policy to help poor smokers. Tob Control 2019 Apr 23;6(1):5-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9176976.
  39. Apollonio DE, Malone RE. Marketing to the marginalised: tobacco industry targeting of the homeless and mentally ill. Tob Control 2005 Dec;14(6):409-15 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16319365.
  40. John R, Cheney MK, Azad MR. Point-of-sale marketing of tobacco products: taking advantage of the socially disadvantaged? J Health Care Poor Underserved 2009 May;20(2):489-506 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19395844.
  41. Anderson S, Hastings G, MacFadyen L. Strategic marketing in the UK tobacco industry. Lancet Oncol 2002 Aug;3(8):481-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12147434.
  42. Kotz D, West R. Explaining the social gradient in smoking cessation: it's not in the trying, but in the succeeding. Tob Control 2009 Feb;18(1):43-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936053.
  43. Arnsten JH, Reid K, Bierer M, Rigotti N. Smoking behavior and interest in quitting among homeless smokers. Addict Behav 2004 Aug;29(6):1155-61 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15236817.
  44. Clemmey P, Brooner R, Chutuape MA, Kidorf M, Stitzer M. Smoking habits and attitudes in a methadone maintenance treatment population. Drug Alcohol Depend 1997 Mar 14;44(2-3):123-32 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9088784.
  45. Siahpush M, Borland R, Yong HH. Sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates of smoking-induced deprivation and its effect on quitting: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Tob Control 2007 Apr;16(2):e2 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17400932.
  46. Thomas S, Fayter D, Misso K, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, et al. Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review. Tob Control 2008 Aug;17(4):230-7 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426867.
  47. Siahpush M, Wakefield MA, Spittal MJ, Durkin SJ, Scollo MM. Taxation reduces social disparities in adult smoking prevalence. Am J Prev Med 2009 Apr;36(4):285-91 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19201146.
  48. Dunlop SM, Perez D, Cotter T. Australian smokers' and recent quitters' responses to the increasing price of cigarettes in the context of a tobacco tax increase. Addiction 2011 Sep;106(9):1687-95 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21561498.
  49. Durkin SJ, Wakefield MA, Spittal MJ. Which types of televised anti-tobacco campaigns prompt more quitline calls from disadvantaged groups? Health Educ Res 2011 Dec;26(6):998-1009 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21715652.
  50. Siahpush M, Wakefield M, Spittal M, Durkin S. Antismoking television advertising and socioeconomic variations in calls to Quitline. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007 Apr;61(4):298-301 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17372288.
  51. McCarthy M, Durkin S, Brennan E, Germain D. Smokefree hospitality venues in Victoria: public approval, patronage and quitting behaviour, 2004-2007. Melbourne: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria; 2008. Report No.: CBRC Research Paper Series no. 32. Available from: http://www.cancervic.org.au/downloads/cbrc_research_papers/CBRC_res_paper_smokefree_ven32-08.pdf.
  52. White VM, Hayman J, Hill DJ. Can population-based tobacco-control policies change smoking behaviors of adolescents from all socio-economic groups? Findings from Australia: 1987-2005. Cancer Causes Control 2008 Aug;19(6):631-40 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18264783.
  53. Drach LL, Morris D, Cushing C, Romoli C, Harris RL. Promoting smoke-free environments and tobacco cessation in residential treatment facilities for mental health and substance addictions, Oregon, 2010. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:E23 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22172190.
  54. Health Development Agency. Homelessness, smoking and health. London, UK: National Health Service; 2004 Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/homelessness_smoking.pdf.
  55. Bonevski B, Paul C, D'Este C, Sanson-Fisher R, West R, Girgis A, et al. RCT of a client-centred, caseworker-delivered smoking cessation intervention for a socially disadvantaged population. BMC Public Health 2011 Jan 31;11(1):70 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21281519.
  56. Bowman JA, Walsh RA. Smoking intervention within alcohol and other drug treatment services: a selective review with suggestions for practical management. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003 Mar;22(1):73-82 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12745361.
  57. Okuyemi KS, Thomas JL, Hall S, Nollen NL, Richter KP, Jeffries SK, et al. Smoking cessation in homeless populations: a pilot clinical trial. Nicotine Tob Res 2006 Oct;8(5):689-99 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17008196.
  58. Baca CT, Yahne CE. Smoking cessation during substance abuse treatment: what you need to know. J Subst Abuse Treat 2009 Mar;36(2):205-19 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18715746.
  59. Solomon LJ, Scharoun GM, Flynn BS, Secker-Walker RH, Sepinwall D. Free nicotine patches plus proactive telephone peer support to help low-income women stop smoking. Prev Med 2000 Jul;31(1):68-74 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10896845.
  60. An LC, Schillo BA, Kavanaugh AM, Lachter RB, Luxenberg MG, Wendling AH, et al. Increased reach and effectiveness of a statewide tobacco quitline after the addition of access to free nicotine replacement therapy. Tob Control 2006 Aug;15(4):286-93 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16885577.
  61. Piasecki TM. Relapse to smoking. Clin Psychol Rev 2006 Mar;26(2):196-215 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16352382.
  62. Rayson D. Project evaluation: Smoking care NSW and smoking care Blacktown - a report on a series of focus groups. Sydney: Cancer Council NSW; 2011.
  63. O’Brien J. Tackling Tobacco: Reframing smoking and the role of community service organisations in reducing smoking-related harm. Developing Practice 2007;18:22-31.
  64. 64.0 64.1 Sigmon SC, Patrick ME. The use of financial incentives in promoting smoking cessation. Prev Med 2012 Nov;55 Suppl:S24-32 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22525802.
  65. 65.0 65.1 65.2 65.3 Cahill K, Perera R. Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Apr 13;(4):CD004307 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21491388.
  66. 66.0 66.1 Lumley J, Chamberlain C, Dowswell T, Oliver S, Oakley L, Watson L. Interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009 Jul 8;(3):CD001055 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19588322.
  67. Bonevski B, Bryant J, Paul C. Encouraging smoking cessation among disadvantaged groups: a qualitative study of the financial aspects of cessation. Drug Alcohol Rev 2011 Jul;30(4):411-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21355917.
  68. Long JA, Helweg-Larsen M, Volpp KG. Patient opinions regarding 'pay for performance for patients'. J Gen Intern Med 2008 Oct;23(10):1647-52 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18663540.
  69. Bonevski B, Bryant J, Lynagh M, Paul C. Money as motivation to quit: a survey of a non-random Australian sample of socially disadvantaged smokers' views of the acceptability of cash incentives. Prev Med 2012 Aug;55(2):122-6 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22691939.
  70. 70.0 70.1 70.2 Aveyard P, Bauld L. Incentives for promoting smoking cessation: What we still do not know. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Apr 13;(8):ED000027 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21833985.
  71. Graham H. Social determinants and their unequal distribution: clarifying policy understandings. Milbank Q 2004;82(1):101-24 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15016245.
  72. Marmot M, Wilkinson R. Social determinants of health: the solid facts. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization; 2003.

Back to top