Upload
marvin-austin
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking area
Linda Homanand
Emma Regan
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Concerns regarding the high percentage of smokers in certain areas of Essex highest on the
English Indices of Deprivation (IMD).
‘Overall in Essex it is estimated that 25.1% of the 20% most deprived communities smoke compared to only 17.5% in the remaining 80% of the population. The prevalence is estimated to be as high as 33.6% in the most deprived communities of Tendring.’ (EJSNA, 2013, p. 8).
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Overall differences in life expectancy between HDAs and LDAs of 7.3 years for men and 4.9 for
women (PHE, 2013). However, a closer look is more revealing.
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Life Expectancy variations in Essex PCT Areas
Area Overall difference
North East Essex 13.3 years
South East Essex 8.6 years
Mid Essex 9.3 years.
West Essex 5.4 years
South West Essex 5.3 to 4.8 years
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Method: The two phases involved focus groups and semi-structured interviews followed
by a county wide survey carried out in the 14 districts of Essex.
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
The effect of socioeconomic status on:Family: There is a significance of living in a smoking household both in high deprivation areas (HDA) (Χ2 = 9.96, df = 1, p = 0.001), and low deprivation areas (LDA) (Χ2 = 37.24, df = 1, p <0.001). Mum smoking for HDA areas was 34.1% compared to half that for the LDA schools at 17%. Dad smoking was similar and 40.4% of HDA school pupils reported that dad smoked compared to 21.1% of LDA pupilsYoung people are 2.08 times as likely to smoke if they do not live with both parents compared with those who live with both parents.
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
The effect of socioeconomic status on:
School / best friend / peer smoking:The results show that there is a significant association between the type of school and the incidence of smoking (Χ2 = 7.64, df = 1, p = 0.007).
Out of school friends smoking: young people are 5.0 times more likely to smoke if out of school friends smoke . Young people are 5.8 times more likely if school friends smoke. If best friends smoke, then the influence was strongest (6.5 times more likely to smoke).
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Interesting proposals for Stop Smoking services and schools
Key implications from the research Young people from a smoking household are more likely to
smoke regardless of socioeconomic status Parent’s smoking behaviour was approx twice as high in
HDA Family smoking has MORE influence in LDA Young people are twice as likely to smoke if they don’t live
with both parents If their best friend smokes they are 6.5 times more likely to
take up smoking. *64.6% of young people (regardless of socioeconomic status)
thought that most people today smoke.
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Preventing uptake and reducing prevalence
• KS 2, 3 & 4 PSHE lessons & risk management
• Highlighting perceptions and influences of family & friends
• Promotion of service for YP and parents at every contact
• Use of peers & YHC’s• Encouraging schools to follow
NICE guidance e.g. comprehensive school stop smoking policy
• In-house school or specialist stop smoking advisers able to work with both YP & families
• Specific smoking cessation programme for YP
• Targeting schools in HDA• Targeting students in
exclusion units/CSS
PREVENTION CESSATION
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Prevention - KS 3 (11-14 yrs)Tackling perceptions
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Prevention – KS 4 (14-15 yrs)
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Cessation
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
FFS toolkit
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Limitations
Academies (often in HDA’s) can be reluctant to accept health & wellbeing support.
Disparity in school advisors role i.e. many do not work with families outside of the school setting
Schools in LDA’s have less capacity for family support workers
High adult smoking = higher YP smoking SSSS constraints
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Future work Develop the prevention/cessation work to reflect
more detailed aspects of the research findings Follow up original research by providing bespoke
prevention sessions to those schools in KS3 and assessing again in KS4.
Work closer with partners (e.g. the PSHE forum/risk avert initiative)
Develop the family quit programme and target parents in HDA schools to quit
The effect of socioeconomic differences on smoking uptake in young people in a low prevalence
smoking areaEmma Regan
AndLinda Homan
Thank you!
ANY QUESTIONS?
Linda Homan – [email protected]
Emma Regan – [email protected]