- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Aafje Dotinga, Carola T.M. Schrijvers, Anthonius J.J. Voorham, Johan P. Mackenbach, Correlates of stages of change of smoking among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods, European Journal of Public Health, Volume 15, Issue 2, April 2005, Pages 152–159, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki112
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
Background: This study examines the prevalence and correlates of stages of change of smoking, in terms of psychosocial, structural and sociodemographic factors, among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods. Methods: Cross-sectional data were obtained from a survey on health related behaviour. Subjects were 2009 current and former smokers, aged 20–46, living in deprived neighbourhoods in Rotterdam, the second largest city in the Netherlands. Three groups of smokers were formed according to the stages of change-definitions of the Transtheoretical Model: smokers not planning to quit (precontemplators), smokers planning to quit (contemplators/preparators) and former smokers (actors/maintainers). Smokers planning to quit and smokers not planning to quit were compared regarding psychosocial factors (attitude, social norm, self-efficacy), structural factors (neighbourhood problems, material deprivation, financial problems, employment status) and sociodemographic factors (age, gender, marital status, cultural background, educational level). Former smokers were compared with smokers planning to quit regarding structural and sociodemographic factors. Logistic regression was used to assess correlates of stages of change. Results: Smokers planning to quit (prevalence = 19%) reported a more positive attitude, stronger social norms and higher self-efficacy expectations in quitting smoking than smokers not planning to quit (prevalence = 57%). Smokers planning to quit less often were Dutch-born, more often had attended higher vocational schooling or university and more often reported experiencing two or more neighbourhood problems compared to smokers not planning to quit. Former smokers (prevalence = 24%) were older, more often Dutch-born, married, employed and higher educated, compared to smokers planning to quit. Furthermore, former smokers less often reported material deprivation and financial problems than smokers planning to quit. Conclusion: Among people living in deprived neighbourhoods, different factors correlate with different stages of change of smoking. Implications for health promotion are discussed.
The prevalence of smoking is higher in deprived neighbourhoods than in affluent neighbourhoods.1,2 Community based interventions could be effective in tackling the high prevalence of smoking in deprived neighbourhoods. To design such interventions, we need to know the determinants of smoking of inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods.
Interventions aimed at smoking cessation are often based on psychosocial models, such as the Transtheoretical model. According to this model, quitting smoking is a process of movement through motivational stages of change, from no intention to quit to maintaining smoking cessation.3,4 Attitude, social influence and self-efficacy are psychosocial key factors in determining behaviour. In the context of smoking behaviour, attitude refers to the individual's positive or negative evaluation of (quitting) smoking,5 social influence pertains to the influence individuals experience in their smoking behaviour from their social environment5 and self-efficacy reflects a persons' expectations about his or her abilities to quit smoking.6 The Transtheoretical model states that psychosocial factors differ in importance in different stages of change concerning smoking cessation.7–9 Therefore, the content of smoking cessation interventions should depend on the stage of change distribution of the target population.
Structural factors, such as employment status or financial situation might also determine the stage of change of smokers (which refer to material (dis)advantages, to which some people in society have no choice but to be exposed). It has been found that people who are materially deprived,10 who are unemployed11 or live in adverse neighbourhood conditions12 more often smoke compared to people who are not materially deprived, who are employed and who live in better neighbourhood conditions. The relationships between structural factors and smoking prevalence suggest that structural factors may also correlate with stages of change of smokers.
Sociodemographic characteristics, such as age, gender and marital status might also be correlates of the stage of change of smokers. Inconsistent results were reported on the relationship between gender and stages of change of smoking and in most studies no relationship was found between educational level or age and stages of change of smoking.13,14 However, because in the Netherlands, the prevalence of smoking varies with age, cultural background and marital status we assume that these sociodemographic factors might also be correlates of stages of change. For example, Dutch men, aged 20–49 smoke more often compared to Dutch men aged 15–19 and men older than 49.15 The prevalence of smoking is higher among divorced people than married people.16 With respect to cultural background, Turkish and Dutch-born inhabitants of the Netherlands smoke more often than residents of the Netherlands with Surinamese or Netherlands Antillean background.17
Psychosocial, as well as structural and sociodemographic factors, thus might be correlates of stages of change of smokers living in deprived neighbourhoods. Based on the knowledge about these correlates of stages of change, effective interventions can be designed, aimed at the progression of smokers in different stages to a higher stage.
The first aim of our study was to describe the prevalence of the stages of change of smoking among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods in Rotterdam, the second largest city of the Netherlands. The second aim of the study was to identify correlates of stages of change of smoking, in terms of psychosocial, structural and sociodemographic factors.
Data and Methods
Population
Data were obtained through survey, conducted in 1999, which aimed to identify determinants of health-related behaviour of people living in deprived neighbourhoods in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Results of the survey will provide information necessary to construct effective interventions to change (determinants of) health-related behaviour in such neighbourhoods. Eight neighbourhoods in Rotterdam were included in the study because they were deprived in three areas, namely economical, infra structural and social, and as such a target area of the Healthy City Project of the Municipal Health Department of Rotterdam.18,19 A random sample of 9551 persons (aged 20–46 years, Dutch nationality), equally distributed across neighbourhoods, received a postal questionnaire about, among other things, (determinants of) smoking. To increase response rates, a reminder was sent after one week. Four and seven weeks after the first reminder, two additional reminders were sent to subjects who had not responded at that time. The overall response rate was 37.7%, resulting in a study population of 3,596 respondents.
A sample of 1600 non-respondents (200 per neighbourhood) was selected for a short telephone interview (46% response). While 43.4% of the respondents to the postal questionnaire smoked, 50.5% of the respondents to this non-response interview smoked. Respondents to the postal questionnaire did not differ in age, gender, marital status and cultural background from non-respondents.
Measurements
Analyses
Respondents for whom information on smoking status (n=16) or on stages of change was missing (n=120), were excluded from the analyses. Respondents who had never smoked were also excluded from analyses (n=1451), leaving 2,009 respondents to be included.
Two series of analyses with stages of change as dichotomous outcome-variable were performed. First, we compared current smokers not planning to quit (precontemplators) with current smokers planning to quit (contemplators and preparators) in terms of psychosocial, structural and sociodemographic factors. Second, we compared smokers planning to quit (contemplators and preparators) with former smokers (actors and maintainers) regarding structural and sociodemographic factors (psychosocial factors were not measured among former smokers).
To determine the characteristics of intenders to quit, by comparing them with non-intenders, we first fitted logistic regression models, including age and gender only. Then each psychosocial, structural or sociodemographic factor was added separately to a model containing age and gender. Respondents for whom information on at least one of the factors in a regression model was missing, were excluded from that particular regression analysis. Reduction in deviance (also called the (results of) likelihood ratio χ2–test) was used to test the significance of each factor. Finally, we studied the contribution of each factor to the intention to quit, not only controlling for age and gender but also for the other factors, by adding the factors to a logistic regression model with age and gender and all other factors of that particular set of factors.
To identify the characteristics of former smokers, through comparison with smokers intending to quit, we followed the same procedure.
Stages of change of smoking
Stages of change of smoking were measured according to the criteria of the Transtheoretical model.3,4,20 Respondents first had to fill in a question about their smoking status. Former smokers were asked when they had stopped smoking. Current smokers indicated their intention to quit smoking within six months or within a month.
Psychosocial factors
Psychosocial factors measured in our study were attitude, social influence and self-efficacy. All were assessed in relation to quitting smoking and therefore only questioned among current smokers. Attitude was assessed by one item, i.e. ‘Do you think quitting smoking is pleasant or unpleasant?’ on a 5-point bipolar scale ranging from 1 = unpleasant to 5 = pleasant. Scores were divided into three categories i.e. ‘unpleasant’ (scores 1 and 2), ‘neither pleasant nor unpleasant’ (3) and ‘pleasant’ (4 and 5). Social influence was measured in terms of social norms, through multiplication of normative beliefs (‘How often do people in your environment tell you to stop smoking?’, never (0), sometimes (1) or often (2)) with motivation to comply (‘Do you comply with these people?’, no (0), sometimes (1) or yes (2)). Total scores ranged from no experience of social norm (0), through weak (1) and intermediate (2) social norm, to experience of a strong social norm (4) and were, because of disproportionate distribution, divided into three categories: none (0), weak (1) and strong social norm (2 or 4). Self-efficacy expectations were assessed by one item ‘Do you think you could quit smoking if you really wanted to?’ on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = very uncertain to 5 = very certain. Scores were divided in three categories, ‘low’ (scores 1 and 2), ‘intermediate’ (3) and ‘high’ self-efficacy (4 and 5).
Structural factors
Structural factors measured in our study were neighbourhood problems, material deprivation, financial problems and employment status. Neighbourhood problems were measured by a checklist containing four items about traffic noise, noise from neighbours, smell and vandalism. Respondents indicated if they had experienced these problems last year (‘yes’ or ‘no’). The answers were classified into four categories (0, 1, 2, and 3 or 4 problems). People were defined as materially deprived if they were not able to afford at least one out of six material assets (e.g. washing machine, refrigerator, basic food). Financial problems were measured by problems in paying the rent, food, bills etc. Answers were divided in ‘no problems’ and ‘some or many problems’. Employment status was assessed by the following descriptions: paid employment, unemployed, work disability, housekeeper, student and self-employed.
Sociodemographic factors
Sociodemographic factors included in the study were age, gender, cultural background, marital status and level of education. Age was divided into five-year categories. Cultural background was assessed by asking the country of birth of the respondent and his parents. Respondents were classified as Dutch-born if the respondent and both parents were born in The Netherlands. When at least one of them (the respondent and both parents) was born in a foreign country, the respondent was classified in one of three categories depending on the country of birth, i.e. respondents of Surinamese or Netherlands Antillean background, respondents of other indigent countries (e.g. Turkey, Cape Verde Islands, Morocco) or respondents of other affluent countries (e.g. Greece, Italy, Belgium, Italy). Marital status was indicated by four categories: (1) never married, (2) married, (3) living together with a partner and (4) divorced/widowed respondents. Highest attained educational level was divided into four categories: (1) higher vocational schooling and university, (2) intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling, (3) lower secondary or vocational schooling and (4) primary school only.
Results
Stages of change
Of the 2009 respondents included in the analyses, 1528 were current smokers (76.1%) and 481 were former smokers (23.9%) (table 1). Current smokers were classified into categories (1) precontemplators (56.9%), (2) contemplators (9.7%) and (3) preparators (9.5%), and former smokers were classified as actors (2.7%) and maintainers (21.2%).
Correlates of intention to quit smoking
Table 2 presents the association between psychosocial factors and intention to quit smoking. We found statistically significantly higher odds of intention to quit smoking among respondents with a more positive attitude, stronger social norm and higher self-efficacy expectations. Trends in odds ratios were observed for all psychosocial factors, i.e. odds ratios increased from negative (unpleasant) to positive (pleasant) attitude, from no to strong social norm and from low to high self-efficacy. Adjustment for all other psychosocial factors did not change the results substantially (results not tabulated).
For structural factors (table 3) the intention to quit smoking was only related to neighbourhood problems, although the reduction in deviance test showed that the total factor was not significant. Respondents who experienced at least two neighbourhood problems had statistically significantly higher odds of intention to quit smoking, both before and after adjustment (results not tabulated) for all other structural factors.
Table 4 shows the association between sociodemographic factors and the intention to quit smoking among current smokers. Differences between smokers planning to quit and smokers not planning to quit were found for cultural background and level of education. Native Dutch respondents statistically significantly less often intended to quit smoking compared to people with a Surinamese or Netherlands Antillean background. Respondents who attended higher vocational schooling or university more often planned to quit compared to respondents who only attended primary school. Adjustment for all other sociodemographic factors did not change these results (results not tabulated).
Correlates of smoking cessation
Table 5 presents the association between structural factors and smoking cessation. The odds of being a former smoker was, both before and after adjustment for all other structural factors, lower among unemployed respondents and respondents who were materially deprived. Respondents who reported financial problems had statistically significantly lower odds of smoking cessation when adjusted for age and gender only.
Table 6 shows the associations between sociodemographic factors and smoking cessation. Adjusted for age and gender, we found statistically significantly elevated odds ratios of being a former smoker among respondents aged 40–46, native Dutch respondents, married people, and respondents with intermediate or higher schooling. Divorced and widowed respondents were significantly less likely to be a former smoker. After adjustment for all sociodemographic factors, the odds ratio of smoking cessation was no longer statistically significant among respondents of the two highest educational subgroups. Respondents aged 35–39 showed statistically significantly higher odds of smoking cessation after adjustment for all other sociodemographic factors.
Discussion
Many smokers in our study did not have the intention to quit smoking within six months, which is in accordance with the results from other Dutch8,21 as well as foreign studies.22,23
As expected, all psychosocial factors were important correlates of the intention to quit smoking. Level of education, cultural background, and neighbourhood conditions were also correlates of the intention to quit smoking. The sociodemographic factors age, marital status, educational level and cultural background and the structural factors material deprivation, financial problems and employment status correlated with smoking cessation.
Non-response in our study in deprived neighbourhoods was high, which is not surprising, because of the large number of people with a low socioeconomic status living in these areas. Response rates are generally lower among people with a low socioeconomic status.24,25 Moreover, non-response in our study is comparable with non-response in a study about alcohol consumption among inhabitants of Rotterdam.26 Non-response might have biased our results. While the prevalence of smoking was already high in our sample (43.4%), compared to the smoking prevalence in the general Dutch population (in 1998: 37.7%),15 it may have been underestimated because the prevalence of smoking was higher among non-respondents (50.5%) compared to respondents (43.4%). Furthermore, non-response in our study might be a problem when the association between stages of change of smoking and the correlates differed between respondents and non-respondents. Unfortunately, data on these associations among non-respondents were not available. Concerning sociodemographic characteristics, only minor differences in gender were found between respondents and non-respondents. Therefore, we consider serious non-response bias to be unlikely.
The cross-sectional character of our data does not necessarily justify a causal interpretation of the association between correlates and the stages of change, as the stages of change also could affect the correlates. For example, a British study found that smoking had an effect on economic hardship, as money spent on cigarettes reduces the available income.27 Longitudinal studies have to be performed to reveal the causality of the relations between correlates and stages of change.
Another possible limitation of our study is the operationalisation of the psychosocial variables. Attitude, social norm and self-efficacy were measured using one question, while in other studies often more items are used.5,28,29 This limited way in which we measured psychosocial variables might explain why we found hardly any differences between contemplators and preparators and between actors and maintainers in psychosocial factors (results not shown), while others did.7,8 This justifies, however, the combination of contemplators and preparators, as well as of actors and maintainers, as one category in the analysis, as we did.
Perhaps another explanation for the rather small differences we found in psychosocial correlates between contemplators and preparators, might be the fact that we did not measure quit attempts in the previous year, as has been done in several studies with respect to stages of change of smoking cessation.14,30 In these studies, preparators have been defined as planning to quit in the next month and having made at least one 24-hour quit attempt in the previous year.
A variable that has not been included in this study, and may have confounded our results, is the level of tobacco dependence. A study about the antecedents of smoking cessation among adolescents31 showed that respondents who smoked daily and smoked many cigarettes per week, were less likely to be motivated to quit. However, mixed results have been reported on the relationship between tobacco dependence and smokers’ ability to quit.
In our study among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods, psychosocial factors were important correlates of stages of change. In accordance with other studies, we found a more positive attitude among smokers intending to quit compared to non-intenders,8,30 and stronger social norms in later stages of change.8,9 In contrast to studies among ‘better-off populations’,7,9,32 we found a difference in self-efficacy between intenders and non-intenders of smoking cessation. Among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods, self-efficacy already seems to play a role in earlier stages. Therefore, health educators working in deprived neighbourhoods not only should focus on changing the attitude towards quitting smoking in a positive way, but also on increasing the self-confidence of people that they can change their smoking behaviour.
All structural factors were correlates of stages of change, which indicates that health education based on psychosocial factors, should be supplemented with interventions aiming at improving the living conditions of smokers living in deprived neighbourhoods. For example, our study showed that materially deprived people, people with financial problems and unemployed people less often had quit smoking. For these people, smoking might be a way to cope with stress related to these adverse situations,33,34 and a positive change in their living conditions may reduce their level of stress and therefore their tendency to continue smoking.
Stress resulting from adverse sociodemographic life-features of inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods may also be a topic in smoking interventions. For example, the loss of a partner may have led to severe stress for divorced and widowed people and smoking might be a way to cope with this stress.2 With respect to educational level, respondents of the highest educational level more often intended to quit smoking and together with respondents of the second highest educational level, more often had quit smoking. This could be explained by the fact that interventions aimed at smoking cessation in the Netherlands often consisted of mass media campaigns. While the effect of such campaigns on smoking behaviour was low in general, an effect did occur in high socioeconomic status groups.35
Current smokers . | . | . | Former smokers . | . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Precontemplatorsa . | Contemplatorsb . | Preparatorsc . | Actorsd . | Maintainerse . | |||
1143 | 195 | 190 | 55 | 426 | |||
56.9% | 9.7% | 9.5% | 2.7% | 21.2% |
Current smokers . | . | . | Former smokers . | . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Precontemplatorsa . | Contemplatorsb . | Preparatorsc . | Actorsd . | Maintainerse . | |||
1143 | 195 | 190 | 55 | 426 | |||
56.9% | 9.7% | 9.5% | 2.7% | 21.2% |
Smokers not planning to quit within six months.
Smokers planning to quit within six months.
Smokers planning to quit within a month.
Former smokers who quit smoking less than six months ago.
Former smokers who quit smoking more than six months ago.
Current smokers . | . | . | Former smokers . | . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Precontemplatorsa . | Contemplatorsb . | Preparatorsc . | Actorsd . | Maintainerse . | |||
1143 | 195 | 190 | 55 | 426 | |||
56.9% | 9.7% | 9.5% | 2.7% | 21.2% |
Current smokers . | . | . | Former smokers . | . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Precontemplatorsa . | Contemplatorsb . | Preparatorsc . | Actorsd . | Maintainerse . | |||
1143 | 195 | 190 | 55 | 426 | |||
56.9% | 9.7% | 9.5% | 2.7% | 21.2% |
Smokers not planning to quit within six months.
Smokers planning to quit within six months.
Smokers planning to quit within a month.
Former smokers who quit smoking less than six months ago.
Former smokers who quit smoking more than six months ago.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Unpleasant | 389 | 27.6 | 5.1 | 1.00 | |
Neither pleasant nor unpleasant | 374 | 26.6 | 11.8 | 2.47 (1.43–4.29) | |
Pleasant | 645 | 45.8 | 45.8 | 14.35 (8.91–23.13) | |
Social norm favouring quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
None | 819 | 58.2 | 12.9 | 1.00 | |
Weak | 275 | 19.5 | 28.4 | 2.66 (1.91–3.72) | |
Strong | 314 | 22.3 | 51.3 | 7.30 (5.38–9.90) | |
Self-efficacy towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Low | 266 | 18.9 | 10.9 | 1.00 | |
Intermediate | 332 | 23.6 | 22.6 | 2.38 (1.49–3.80) | |
High | 810 | 57.5 | 29.8 | 3.48 (2.29–5.28) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Unpleasant | 389 | 27.6 | 5.1 | 1.00 | |
Neither pleasant nor unpleasant | 374 | 26.6 | 11.8 | 2.47 (1.43–4.29) | |
Pleasant | 645 | 45.8 | 45.8 | 14.35 (8.91–23.13) | |
Social norm favouring quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
None | 819 | 58.2 | 12.9 | 1.00 | |
Weak | 275 | 19.5 | 28.4 | 2.66 (1.91–3.72) | |
Strong | 314 | 22.3 | 51.3 | 7.30 (5.38–9.90) | |
Self-efficacy towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Low | 266 | 18.9 | 10.9 | 1.00 | |
Intermediate | 332 | 23.6 | 22.6 | 2.38 (1.49–3.80) | |
High | 810 | 57.5 | 29.8 | 3.48 (2.29–5.28) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Unpleasant | 389 | 27.6 | 5.1 | 1.00 | |
Neither pleasant nor unpleasant | 374 | 26.6 | 11.8 | 2.47 (1.43–4.29) | |
Pleasant | 645 | 45.8 | 45.8 | 14.35 (8.91–23.13) | |
Social norm favouring quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
None | 819 | 58.2 | 12.9 | 1.00 | |
Weak | 275 | 19.5 | 28.4 | 2.66 (1.91–3.72) | |
Strong | 314 | 22.3 | 51.3 | 7.30 (5.38–9.90) | |
Self-efficacy towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Low | 266 | 18.9 | 10.9 | 1.00 | |
Intermediate | 332 | 23.6 | 22.6 | 2.38 (1.49–3.80) | |
High | 810 | 57.5 | 29.8 | 3.48 (2.29–5.28) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitude towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Unpleasant | 389 | 27.6 | 5.1 | 1.00 | |
Neither pleasant nor unpleasant | 374 | 26.6 | 11.8 | 2.47 (1.43–4.29) | |
Pleasant | 645 | 45.8 | 45.8 | 14.35 (8.91–23.13) | |
Social norm favouring quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
None | 819 | 58.2 | 12.9 | 1.00 | |
Weak | 275 | 19.5 | 28.4 | 2.66 (1.91–3.72) | |
Strong | 314 | 22.3 | 51.3 | 7.30 (5.38–9.90) | |
Self-efficacy towards quitting | 0.0000 | ||||
Low | 266 | 18.9 | 10.9 | 1.00 | |
Intermediate | 332 | 23.6 | 22.6 | 2.38 (1.49–3.80) | |
High | 810 | 57.5 | 29.8 | 3.48 (2.29–5.28) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
. | N . | % . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance, red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.1367 | ||||
0 problems | 216 | 20.9 | 20.4 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 375 | 36.3 | 24.0 | 1.25 (0.83–1.88) | |
2 problems | 263 | 25.5 | 28.5 | 1.58 (1.03–2.43) | |
≥3 problems | 179 | 17.3 | 29.6 | 1.62 (1.02–2.58) | |
Material deprivation | 0.3483 | ||||
No | 895 | 86.6 | 25.4 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 138 | 13.4 | 25.4 | 0.99 (0.65–1.50) | |
Financial problems | 0.6918 | ||||
No | 695 | 67.3 | 25.2 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 338 | 32.7 | 25.7 | 1.02 (0.76–1.38) | |
Employment status | 0.5229 | ||||
Paid employment | 645 | 62.4 | 24.8 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 144 | 13.9 | 26.4 | 1.09 (0.72–1.65) | |
Work disability | 41 | 4.0 | 24.4 | 1.02 (0.49–2.15) | |
Housepersons | 106 | 10.3 | 21.7 | 0.84 (0.50–1.42) | |
Student | 39 | 3.8 | 33.3 | 1.61 (0.75–3.44) | |
Self-employed | 58 | 5.6 | 31.0 | 1.38 (0.77–2.48) |
. | N . | % . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance, red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.1367 | ||||
0 problems | 216 | 20.9 | 20.4 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 375 | 36.3 | 24.0 | 1.25 (0.83–1.88) | |
2 problems | 263 | 25.5 | 28.5 | 1.58 (1.03–2.43) | |
≥3 problems | 179 | 17.3 | 29.6 | 1.62 (1.02–2.58) | |
Material deprivation | 0.3483 | ||||
No | 895 | 86.6 | 25.4 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 138 | 13.4 | 25.4 | 0.99 (0.65–1.50) | |
Financial problems | 0.6918 | ||||
No | 695 | 67.3 | 25.2 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 338 | 32.7 | 25.7 | 1.02 (0.76–1.38) | |
Employment status | 0.5229 | ||||
Paid employment | 645 | 62.4 | 24.8 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 144 | 13.9 | 26.4 | 1.09 (0.72–1.65) | |
Work disability | 41 | 4.0 | 24.4 | 1.02 (0.49–2.15) | |
Housepersons | 106 | 10.3 | 21.7 | 0.84 (0.50–1.42) | |
Student | 39 | 3.8 | 33.3 | 1.61 (0.75–3.44) | |
Self-employed | 58 | 5.6 | 31.0 | 1.38 (0.77–2.48) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only.
. | N . | % . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance, red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.1367 | ||||
0 problems | 216 | 20.9 | 20.4 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 375 | 36.3 | 24.0 | 1.25 (0.83–1.88) | |
2 problems | 263 | 25.5 | 28.5 | 1.58 (1.03–2.43) | |
≥3 problems | 179 | 17.3 | 29.6 | 1.62 (1.02–2.58) | |
Material deprivation | 0.3483 | ||||
No | 895 | 86.6 | 25.4 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 138 | 13.4 | 25.4 | 0.99 (0.65–1.50) | |
Financial problems | 0.6918 | ||||
No | 695 | 67.3 | 25.2 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 338 | 32.7 | 25.7 | 1.02 (0.76–1.38) | |
Employment status | 0.5229 | ||||
Paid employment | 645 | 62.4 | 24.8 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 144 | 13.9 | 26.4 | 1.09 (0.72–1.65) | |
Work disability | 41 | 4.0 | 24.4 | 1.02 (0.49–2.15) | |
Housepersons | 106 | 10.3 | 21.7 | 0.84 (0.50–1.42) | |
Student | 39 | 3.8 | 33.3 | 1.61 (0.75–3.44) | |
Self-employed | 58 | 5.6 | 31.0 | 1.38 (0.77–2.48) |
. | N . | % . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance, red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.1367 | ||||
0 problems | 216 | 20.9 | 20.4 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 375 | 36.3 | 24.0 | 1.25 (0.83–1.88) | |
2 problems | 263 | 25.5 | 28.5 | 1.58 (1.03–2.43) | |
≥3 problems | 179 | 17.3 | 29.6 | 1.62 (1.02–2.58) | |
Material deprivation | 0.3483 | ||||
No | 895 | 86.6 | 25.4 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 138 | 13.4 | 25.4 | 0.99 (0.65–1.50) | |
Financial problems | 0.6918 | ||||
No | 695 | 67.3 | 25.2 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 338 | 32.7 | 25.7 | 1.02 (0.76–1.38) | |
Employment status | 0.5229 | ||||
Paid employment | 645 | 62.4 | 24.8 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 144 | 13.9 | 26.4 | 1.09 (0.72–1.65) | |
Work disability | 41 | 4.0 | 24.4 | 1.02 (0.49–2.15) | |
Housepersons | 106 | 10.3 | 21.7 | 0.84 (0.50–1.42) | |
Student | 39 | 3.8 | 33.3 | 1.61 (0.75–3.44) | |
Self-employed | 58 | 5.6 | 31.0 | 1.38 (0.77–2.48) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.7608 | ||||
20–24 | 144 | 10.4 | 25.0 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 247 | 17.8 | 26.3 | 1.07 (0.67–1.71) | |
30–34 | 294 | 21.1 | 27.6 | 1.14 (0.72–1.80) | |
35–39 | 306 | 22.0 | 23.2 | 0.90 (0.57–1.43) | |
40–46 | 399 | 28.7 | 22.8 | 0.89 (0.57–1.38) | |
Gender | 0.6206 | ||||
Men | 636 | 45.8 | 24.2 | 1.00 | |
Women | 754 | 54.2 | 25.2 | 1.05 (0.82–1.34) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 263 | 18.9 | 34.2 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 50 | 3.6 | 30.0 | 0.82 (0.43–1.59) | |
The Netherlands | 969 | 69.7 | 21.5 | 0.52 (0.39–0.70) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 108 | 7.8 | 28.7 | 0.76 (0.46–1.23) | |
Marital status | 0.5422 | ||||
Never married | 570 | 41.0 | 24.0 | 1.00 | |
Married | 350 | 25.1 | 23.4 | 1.02 (0.74–1.03) | |
Living together | 276 | 19.9 | 25.4 | 1.07 (0.77–1.50) | |
Divorced/widowed | 194 | 14.0 | 28.4 | 1.35 (0.92–1.99) | |
Level of education | 0.0269 | ||||
Primary school only | 243 | 17.5 | 23.9 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 588 | 42.3 | 21.9 | 0.89 (0.62–1.27) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 356 | 25.6 | 25.3 | 1.05 (0.71–1.56) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 203 | 14.6 | 33.0 | 1.52 (1.00–2.34) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.7608 | ||||
20–24 | 144 | 10.4 | 25.0 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 247 | 17.8 | 26.3 | 1.07 (0.67–1.71) | |
30–34 | 294 | 21.1 | 27.6 | 1.14 (0.72–1.80) | |
35–39 | 306 | 22.0 | 23.2 | 0.90 (0.57–1.43) | |
40–46 | 399 | 28.7 | 22.8 | 0.89 (0.57–1.38) | |
Gender | 0.6206 | ||||
Men | 636 | 45.8 | 24.2 | 1.00 | |
Women | 754 | 54.2 | 25.2 | 1.05 (0.82–1.34) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 263 | 18.9 | 34.2 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 50 | 3.6 | 30.0 | 0.82 (0.43–1.59) | |
The Netherlands | 969 | 69.7 | 21.5 | 0.52 (0.39–0.70) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 108 | 7.8 | 28.7 | 0.76 (0.46–1.23) | |
Marital status | 0.5422 | ||||
Never married | 570 | 41.0 | 24.0 | 1.00 | |
Married | 350 | 25.1 | 23.4 | 1.02 (0.74–1.03) | |
Living together | 276 | 19.9 | 25.4 | 1.07 (0.77–1.50) | |
Divorced/widowed | 194 | 14.0 | 28.4 | 1.35 (0.92–1.99) | |
Level of education | 0.0269 | ||||
Primary school only | 243 | 17.5 | 23.9 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 588 | 42.3 | 21.9 | 0.89 (0.62–1.27) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 356 | 25.6 | 25.3 | 1.05 (0.71–1.56) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 203 | 14.6 | 33.0 | 1.52 (1.00–2.34) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
The category ‘other indigent countries’ mainly consists of people of the following countries: Turkey, Cape Verde Islands, Morocco and North Mediterranean.
The category ‘other affluent countries’ mainly consists of people from rich European countries, e.g. Greece, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Austria.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.7608 | ||||
20–24 | 144 | 10.4 | 25.0 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 247 | 17.8 | 26.3 | 1.07 (0.67–1.71) | |
30–34 | 294 | 21.1 | 27.6 | 1.14 (0.72–1.80) | |
35–39 | 306 | 22.0 | 23.2 | 0.90 (0.57–1.43) | |
40–46 | 399 | 28.7 | 22.8 | 0.89 (0.57–1.38) | |
Gender | 0.6206 | ||||
Men | 636 | 45.8 | 24.2 | 1.00 | |
Women | 754 | 54.2 | 25.2 | 1.05 (0.82–1.34) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 263 | 18.9 | 34.2 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 50 | 3.6 | 30.0 | 0.82 (0.43–1.59) | |
The Netherlands | 969 | 69.7 | 21.5 | 0.52 (0.39–0.70) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 108 | 7.8 | 28.7 | 0.76 (0.46–1.23) | |
Marital status | 0.5422 | ||||
Never married | 570 | 41.0 | 24.0 | 1.00 | |
Married | 350 | 25.1 | 23.4 | 1.02 (0.74–1.03) | |
Living together | 276 | 19.9 | 25.4 | 1.07 (0.77–1.50) | |
Divorced/widowed | 194 | 14.0 | 28.4 | 1.35 (0.92–1.99) | |
Level of education | 0.0269 | ||||
Primary school only | 243 | 17.5 | 23.9 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 588 | 42.3 | 21.9 | 0.89 (0.62–1.27) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 356 | 25.6 | 25.3 | 1.05 (0.71–1.56) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 203 | 14.6 | 33.0 | 1.52 (1.00–2.34) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of smokers planning to quit . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.7608 | ||||
20–24 | 144 | 10.4 | 25.0 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 247 | 17.8 | 26.3 | 1.07 (0.67–1.71) | |
30–34 | 294 | 21.1 | 27.6 | 1.14 (0.72–1.80) | |
35–39 | 306 | 22.0 | 23.2 | 0.90 (0.57–1.43) | |
40–46 | 399 | 28.7 | 22.8 | 0.89 (0.57–1.38) | |
Gender | 0.6206 | ||||
Men | 636 | 45.8 | 24.2 | 1.00 | |
Women | 754 | 54.2 | 25.2 | 1.05 (0.82–1.34) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 263 | 18.9 | 34.2 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 50 | 3.6 | 30.0 | 0.82 (0.43–1.59) | |
The Netherlands | 969 | 69.7 | 21.5 | 0.52 (0.39–0.70) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 108 | 7.8 | 28.7 | 0.76 (0.46–1.23) | |
Marital status | 0.5422 | ||||
Never married | 570 | 41.0 | 24.0 | 1.00 | |
Married | 350 | 25.1 | 23.4 | 1.02 (0.74–1.03) | |
Living together | 276 | 19.9 | 25.4 | 1.07 (0.77–1.50) | |
Divorced/widowed | 194 | 14.0 | 28.4 | 1.35 (0.92–1.99) | |
Level of education | 0.0269 | ||||
Primary school only | 243 | 17.5 | 23.9 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 588 | 42.3 | 21.9 | 0.89 (0.62–1.27) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 356 | 25.6 | 25.3 | 1.05 (0.71–1.56) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 203 | 14.6 | 33.0 | 1.52 (1.00–2.34) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
The category ‘other indigent countries’ mainly consists of people of the following countries: Turkey, Cape Verde Islands, Morocco and North Mediterranean.
The category ‘other affluent countries’ mainly consists of people from rich European countries, e.g. Greece, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Austria.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.2416 | ||||
0 problems | 123 | 20.4 | 64.2 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 206 | 34.2 | 56.3 | 0.71 (0.45–1.14) | |
2 problems | 165 | 27.4 | 54.5 | 0.66 (0.41–1.07) | |
≥3 problems | 108 | 17.9 | 50.9 | 0.60 (0.35–1.01) | |
Material deprivation | 0.0001 | ||||
No | 542 | 90.0 | 58.1 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 60 | 10.0 | 41.7 | 0.53 (0.30–0.91) | |
Financial problems | 0.0000 | ||||
No | 444 | 73.8 | 60.6 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 158 | 26.2 | 44.9 | 0.54 (0.38–0.78) | |
Employment status | 0.0186 | ||||
Paid employment | 399 | 66.3 | 59.9 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 62 | 10.3 | 38.7 | 0.40 (0.23–0.70) | |
Work disability | 24 | 4.0 | 58.3 | 0.89 (0.38–2.08) | |
Housepersons | 55 | 9.1 | 58.2 | 0.81 (0.44–1.48) | |
Student | 25 | 4.2 | 48.0 | 0.71 (0.29–1.76) | |
Self-employed | 37 | 6.1 | 51.4 | 0.76 (0.38–1.50) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.2416 | ||||
0 problems | 123 | 20.4 | 64.2 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 206 | 34.2 | 56.3 | 0.71 (0.45–1.14) | |
2 problems | 165 | 27.4 | 54.5 | 0.66 (0.41–1.07) | |
≥3 problems | 108 | 17.9 | 50.9 | 0.60 (0.35–1.01) | |
Material deprivation | 0.0001 | ||||
No | 542 | 90.0 | 58.1 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 60 | 10.0 | 41.7 | 0.53 (0.30–0.91) | |
Financial problems | 0.0000 | ||||
No | 444 | 73.8 | 60.6 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 158 | 26.2 | 44.9 | 0.54 (0.38–0.78) | |
Employment status | 0.0186 | ||||
Paid employment | 399 | 66.3 | 59.9 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 62 | 10.3 | 38.7 | 0.40 (0.23–0.70) | |
Work disability | 24 | 4.0 | 58.3 | 0.89 (0.38–2.08) | |
Housepersons | 55 | 9.1 | 58.2 | 0.81 (0.44–1.48) | |
Student | 25 | 4.2 | 48.0 | 0.71 (0.29–1.76) | |
Self-employed | 37 | 6.1 | 51.4 | 0.76 (0.38–1.50) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; ns, not significant; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.2416 | ||||
0 problems | 123 | 20.4 | 64.2 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 206 | 34.2 | 56.3 | 0.71 (0.45–1.14) | |
2 problems | 165 | 27.4 | 54.5 | 0.66 (0.41–1.07) | |
≥3 problems | 108 | 17.9 | 50.9 | 0.60 (0.35–1.01) | |
Material deprivation | 0.0001 | ||||
No | 542 | 90.0 | 58.1 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 60 | 10.0 | 41.7 | 0.53 (0.30–0.91) | |
Financial problems | 0.0000 | ||||
No | 444 | 73.8 | 60.6 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 158 | 26.2 | 44.9 | 0.54 (0.38–0.78) | |
Employment status | 0.0186 | ||||
Paid employment | 399 | 66.3 | 59.9 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 62 | 10.3 | 38.7 | 0.40 (0.23–0.70) | |
Work disability | 24 | 4.0 | 58.3 | 0.89 (0.38–2.08) | |
Housepersons | 55 | 9.1 | 58.2 | 0.81 (0.44–1.48) | |
Student | 25 | 4.2 | 48.0 | 0.71 (0.29–1.76) | |
Self-employed | 37 | 6.1 | 51.4 | 0.76 (0.38–1.50) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighbourhood conditions | 0.2416 | ||||
0 problems | 123 | 20.4 | 64.2 | 1.00 | |
1 problem | 206 | 34.2 | 56.3 | 0.71 (0.45–1.14) | |
2 problems | 165 | 27.4 | 54.5 | 0.66 (0.41–1.07) | |
≥3 problems | 108 | 17.9 | 50.9 | 0.60 (0.35–1.01) | |
Material deprivation | 0.0001 | ||||
No | 542 | 90.0 | 58.1 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 60 | 10.0 | 41.7 | 0.53 (0.30–0.91) | |
Financial problems | 0.0000 | ||||
No | 444 | 73.8 | 60.6 | 1.00 | |
Yes | 158 | 26.2 | 44.9 | 0.54 (0.38–0.78) | |
Employment status | 0.0186 | ||||
Paid employment | 399 | 66.3 | 59.9 | 1.00 | |
Unemployed | 62 | 10.3 | 38.7 | 0.40 (0.23–0.70) | |
Work disability | 24 | 4.0 | 58.3 | 0.89 (0.38–2.08) | |
Housepersons | 55 | 9.1 | 58.2 | 0.81 (0.44–1.48) | |
Student | 25 | 4.2 | 48.0 | 0.71 (0.29–1.76) | |
Self-employed | 37 | 6.1 | 51.4 | 0.76 (0.38–1.50) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; ns, not significant; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.0136 | ||||
20–24 | 66 | 8.4 | 45.5 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 138 | 17.6 | 52.9 | 1.33 (0.74–2.40) | |
30–34 | 156 | 19.8 | 48.1 | 1.09 (0.61–1.95) | |
35–39 | 175 | 22.3 | 59.4 | 1.73 (0.98–3.06) | |
40–46 | 251 | 31.9 | 63.7 | 2.14 (1.23–3.70) | |
Gender | 0.1759 | ||||
Men | 335 | 42.6 | 54.0 | 1.00 | |
Women | 451 | 57.4 | 57.9 | 1.22 (0.91–1.63) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 152 | 19.4 | 40.8 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 37 | 4.7 | 59.5 | 1.98 (0.94–4.15) | |
The Netherlands | 537 | 68.3 | 61.3 | 2.28 (1.57–3.30) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 60 | 7.6 | 48.3 | 1.31 (0.71–2.40) | |
Marital status | 0.0000 | ||||
Never married | 288 | 36.6 | 52.4 | 1.00 | |
Married | 247 | 31.4 | 66.8 | 1.50 (1.03–2.19) | |
Living together | 164 | 20.9 | 57.3 | 1.21 (0.82–1.80) | |
Divorced/widowed | 87 | 11.1 | 36.8 | 0.42 (0.25–0.70) | |
Level of education | 0.0112 | ||||
Primary school only | 116 | 14.8 | 50.0 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 276 | 35.1 | 53.3 | 1.22 (0.78–1.89) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 217 | 27.6 | 58.5 | 1.79 (1.12–2.87) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 177 | 22.5 | 62.1 | 1.99 (1.22–3.26) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.0136 | ||||
20–24 | 66 | 8.4 | 45.5 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 138 | 17.6 | 52.9 | 1.33 (0.74–2.40) | |
30–34 | 156 | 19.8 | 48.1 | 1.09 (0.61–1.95) | |
35–39 | 175 | 22.3 | 59.4 | 1.73 (0.98–3.06) | |
40–46 | 251 | 31.9 | 63.7 | 2.14 (1.23–3.70) | |
Gender | 0.1759 | ||||
Men | 335 | 42.6 | 54.0 | 1.00 | |
Women | 451 | 57.4 | 57.9 | 1.22 (0.91–1.63) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 152 | 19.4 | 40.8 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 37 | 4.7 | 59.5 | 1.98 (0.94–4.15) | |
The Netherlands | 537 | 68.3 | 61.3 | 2.28 (1.57–3.30) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 60 | 7.6 | 48.3 | 1.31 (0.71–2.40) | |
Marital status | 0.0000 | ||||
Never married | 288 | 36.6 | 52.4 | 1.00 | |
Married | 247 | 31.4 | 66.8 | 1.50 (1.03–2.19) | |
Living together | 164 | 20.9 | 57.3 | 1.21 (0.82–1.80) | |
Divorced/widowed | 87 | 11.1 | 36.8 | 0.42 (0.25–0.70) | |
Level of education | 0.0112 | ||||
Primary school only | 116 | 14.8 | 50.0 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 276 | 35.1 | 53.3 | 1.22 (0.78–1.89) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 217 | 27.6 | 58.5 | 1.79 (1.12–2.87) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 177 | 22.5 | 62.1 | 1.99 (1.22–3.26) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
The category ‘other indigent countries’ mainly consists of people of the following countries: Turkey, Cape Verde Islands, Morocco and North Mediterranean.
The category ‘other affluent countries’ mainly consists of people from rich European countries, e.g. Greece, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Austria.
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.0136 | ||||
20–24 | 66 | 8.4 | 45.5 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 138 | 17.6 | 52.9 | 1.33 (0.74–2.40) | |
30–34 | 156 | 19.8 | 48.1 | 1.09 (0.61–1.95) | |
35–39 | 175 | 22.3 | 59.4 | 1.73 (0.98–3.06) | |
40–46 | 251 | 31.9 | 63.7 | 2.14 (1.23–3.70) | |
Gender | 0.1759 | ||||
Men | 335 | 42.6 | 54.0 | 1.00 | |
Women | 451 | 57.4 | 57.9 | 1.22 (0.91–1.63) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 152 | 19.4 | 40.8 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 37 | 4.7 | 59.5 | 1.98 (0.94–4.15) | |
The Netherlands | 537 | 68.3 | 61.3 | 2.28 (1.57–3.30) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 60 | 7.6 | 48.3 | 1.31 (0.71–2.40) | |
Marital status | 0.0000 | ||||
Never married | 288 | 36.6 | 52.4 | 1.00 | |
Married | 247 | 31.4 | 66.8 | 1.50 (1.03–2.19) | |
Living together | 164 | 20.9 | 57.3 | 1.21 (0.82–1.80) | |
Divorced/widowed | 87 | 11.1 | 36.8 | 0.42 (0.25–0.70) | |
Level of education | 0.0112 | ||||
Primary school only | 116 | 14.8 | 50.0 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 276 | 35.1 | 53.3 | 1.22 (0.78–1.89) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 217 | 27.6 | 58.5 | 1.79 (1.12–2.87) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 177 | 22.5 | 62.1 | 1.99 (1.22–3.26) |
. | N . | Percentage of respondents . | Percentage of former smokers . | ORa , 95% CI . | Significance red. devianceb . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.0136 | ||||
20–24 | 66 | 8.4 | 45.5 | 1.00 | |
25–29 | 138 | 17.6 | 52.9 | 1.33 (0.74–2.40) | |
30–34 | 156 | 19.8 | 48.1 | 1.09 (0.61–1.95) | |
35–39 | 175 | 22.3 | 59.4 | 1.73 (0.98–3.06) | |
40–46 | 251 | 31.9 | 63.7 | 2.14 (1.23–3.70) | |
Gender | 0.1759 | ||||
Men | 335 | 42.6 | 54.0 | 1.00 | |
Women | 451 | 57.4 | 57.9 | 1.22 (0.91–1.63) | |
Cultural background | 0.0000 | ||||
Surinam/Netherlands Antilles | 152 | 19.4 | 40.8 | 1.00 | |
Other indigent countriesc | 37 | 4.7 | 59.5 | 1.98 (0.94–4.15) | |
The Netherlands | 537 | 68.3 | 61.3 | 2.28 (1.57–3.30) | |
Other affluent countriesd | 60 | 7.6 | 48.3 | 1.31 (0.71–2.40) | |
Marital status | 0.0000 | ||||
Never married | 288 | 36.6 | 52.4 | 1.00 | |
Married | 247 | 31.4 | 66.8 | 1.50 (1.03–2.19) | |
Living together | 164 | 20.9 | 57.3 | 1.21 (0.82–1.80) | |
Divorced/widowed | 87 | 11.1 | 36.8 | 0.42 (0.25–0.70) | |
Level of education | 0.0112 | ||||
Primary school only | 116 | 14.8 | 50.0 | 1.00 | |
Lower secondary or vocational schooling | 276 | 35.1 | 53.3 | 1.22 (0.78–1.89) | |
Intermediate vocational schooling or intermediate/higher secondary schooling | 217 | 27.6 | 58.5 | 1.79 (1.12–2.87) | |
Higher vocational schooling/university | 177 | 22.5 | 62.1 | 1.99 (1.22–3.26) |
Adjusted for age and gender.
p-value based on the reduction in deviance due to the inclusion of a possible explanatory factor, comparing the model to a model with age and gender only; p-value for significance of difference between the models.
The category ‘other indigent countries’ mainly consists of people of the following countries: Turkey, Cape Verde Islands, Morocco and North Mediterranean.
The category ‘other affluent countries’ mainly consists of people from rich European countries, e.g. Greece, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Portugal and Austria.
Prevalence and psychosocial, structural and sociodemographic correlates of stages of change of smoking among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods.
Attitude, social norm and self-efficacy were important correlates of the intention to quit smoking among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods.
Level of education, cultural background, and neighbourhood conditions were also correlates of the intention to quit smoking.
Besides sociodemographic factors, also structural factors such as material deprivation, financial problems and employment status correlated with smoking cessation.
Health education based on psychosocial factors should be supplemented with interventions, improving the living conditions of smokers living in deprived neighbourhoods.
The authors thank Willy de Haes for his helpful comments concerning the design of the study and the writing of this article. The Netherlands Health Research and Development Council funded this research. The medical-ethical committee of Erasmus University Rotterdam approved the study.
References
Kleinschmidt I, Hills M, Elliott P. Smoking behaviour can be predicted by neighbourhood deprivation measures.
Reijneveld SA. The impact of individual and area characteristics on urban socioeconomic differences in health and smoking.
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change.
Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC, Norcross JC. In search of how people change: applications to addictive behaviors.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NI: Prentice Hall,
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Dijkstra A, De Vries H, Bakker M. Pros and cons of quitting, self-efficacy, and the stages of change in smoking cessation.
De Vries H, Mudde AN, Dijkstra A, Willemsen MC. Differential beliefs, perceived social influences, and self-efficacy expectations among smokers in various motivational phases.
De Vries H, Backbier E. Self-efficacy as an important determinant of quitting among pregnant women who smoke: The Ø-pattern.
Stronks K, Mheen HD van de, Looman CWN, Mackenbach JP. Cultural, material, and psychosocial correlates of the socioeconomic gradient in smoking behavior among adults.
Whitehead M. The health divide. In: Townsend P, Davidson N, Whitehead M, editors. Inequalities in health. London: Penguin,
Snow MG, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS. Stages of change for smoking cessation among former problem drinkers: a cross-sectional analysis.
DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO, Fairhurst SK, Velicer WF, Velasquez MM, Rossi JS. The process of smoking cessation: an analysis of precontemplation, contemplation and preparation stages of change.
Joung IMA, Stronks K, Mheen van de H, Mackenbach JP. Health behaviours explain part of the differences in self-reported health by partner/marital status.
Reijneveld SA. Reported health, lifestyles, and use of health care of first generation immigrants in the Netherlands: do socioeconomic factors explain their adverse position?
World Health Organisation. Twenty steps for developing a Healthy Cities Project. 2nd edn. Copenhagen: WHO,
Gemeenteraad Rotterdam 1998. Plan van Aanpak Strategische Wijkaanpak, Bestuursdienst, Rotterdam (in Dutch).
Velicer WF, DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO, Brandenburg N. A decisional balance measure for predicting smoking cessation.
Dijkstra A, Bakker M, De Vries H. Subtypes within a sample of precontemplating smokers: a preliminary extension of the stages of change.
Laforge RG, Velicer WF, Richmond RL, Owen N. Stage distributions for five health behaviors in the United States and Australia.
Pallonen UE, Fava JL, Salonen JT, Prochaska JO. Readiness for smoking change among middle-aged Finnish men: the KUOPIO CVD risk factor trial.
Jooste PL, Yach D, Steenkamp HJ, Rossouw JE. Drop-out and newcomer bias in a community cardiovascular follow-up study.
Sonne-Holm S, Sorensen TI, Jensen G, Schnohr P. Influence of fatness, intelligence, education and sociodemographic factors on response rate in a health survey.
Bongers IMB. Problem drinking among the general population: a public health issue? Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam,
Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley,
DiClemente CC, Prochaska JO, Gibertini M. Self-efficacy and the stages of self-change of smoking.
De Vries H, Mudde AN. Predicting stage transitions for smoking cessation applying the attitude-social influence-efficacy model.
Engels RCME, Knibbe RA, De Vries H, Drop MJ. Antecedents of smoking cessation among adolescents: who is motivated to change?
Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, DiClemente CC, Guadagnoli E, Rossi JS. Patterns of change: dynamic typology appplied to smoking cessation.
Janlert U, Asplund K, Weinehall L. Unemployment and cardiovascular risk factors.
Davey Smith G, Blane D, Bartley M. Explanations for socio-economic differentials in mortality. Evidence from Britain and elsewhere.
Comments