Top

Cancer Causes & Control

Published in:

01-01-2014 | Original paper

Trends in smoking in Canada from 1950 to 2011: progression of the tobacco epidemic according to socioeconomic status and geography

Authors: Daniel J. Corsi, Michael H. Boyle, Scott A. Lear, Clara K. Chow, Koon K. Teo, S. V. Subramanian

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 1/2014

Abstract

Purpose

Smoking has declined in Canada in recent years. However, it is not clear whether differences in current smoking by socioeconomic status have increased, decreased, or remained unchanged in Canada.

Methods

We examined rates of current smoking by sex, education, and province from 1950 to 2011. Differences in current smoking, initiation, and cessation were summarized using relative and absolute measures.

Results

Between 1950 and 2011, the prevalence of current smoking (including daily and non-daily) among adults aged 20 years and older decreased steadily in men from 68.9 % (95 % CI 63.9–73.3) to 18.6 % (14.9–22.1) but in women increased slightly from 38.2 % (32.3–42.2) in 1950 to 39.1 % (36.4–41.2) in 1959 before declining to 15.4 % (11.9–18.9) in 2011. Among men, there was an inverse association between educational attainment and smoking which was consistent from 1950 to 2011. A similar gradient emerged in the mid-1960s in women. Absolute differences in rates of smoking across levels of education increased despite overall declines in smoking across all levels of education. Rates of smoking in women and men were higher in the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec, although in men these differences have declined since the 1990s. In a subset of data from 1999 to 2011, those with lower levels of education had higher levels of smoking initiation and lower levels of cessation.

Conclusions

Smoking rates have fallen over time but socioeconomic differences have increased. Smoking prevalence peaked later in lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups, and rates of decline in lower SES groups and certain provinces have been less steep. This suggests that SES gradients emerge rapidly in later stages of the tobacco epidemic and may have increased through greater efficacy of tobacco control policies in reducing smoking among those of higher SES compared to those of lower SES. Tailored approaches may be required to reduce smoking rates in those of lower SES and narrow SES differences.

Available only for authorised users

The relative change in the ratio of smoking prevalence between low- and high-SES groups was calculated for each study as follows. First, SES ratios were defined for the first and final study years as the rates of smoking in low-SES groups divided by the rates in high-SES groups. Next, the relative change in the ratio was calculated as the difference in these ratios divided by the ratio in the first study year and expressed as a percentage. For example, in Barnett (first row of Table 1), the SES ratio was 1.9 in the final year and 1.6 in the first year, yielding a relative change in the ratio of (1.925–1.58)/1.58 = 21.8 %. Note ratios in the table have been rounded to 1 decimal place.

Pierce JP (1989) International comparisons of trends in cigarette smoking prevalence. Am J Public Health 79:152–157PubMedCrossRef

Canada Health (2010) Canadian tobacco use monitoring survey (CTUMS): smoking prevalence 1999–2010. Health Canada, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate, Ottawa

King B, Dube S, Kaufmann R, Shaw L, Pechacek T (2011) Vital signs: current cigarette smoking among adults aged ≥18 years–United States, 2005–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 60:1207–12

Stephens M, Siroonian J (1998) Smoking prevalence, quit attempts and successes. Health Rep. 9: 31–37(Eng); -8(Fre)

Stephens T (1988) A critical review of Canadian survey data on tobacco use, attitudes and knowledge. Tobacco Programs Unit, Health Promotion Directorate, Health and Welfare Canada, Ottawa, ON

Canada Health (2010) Supplementary tables, CTUMS annual 2010 (February–December 2010). Health Canada, Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate, Ottawa, ON

Jarvis M, Wardle J (2006) Social patterning of individual health behaviours: the case of cigarette smoking. In: Marmot MG, Wilkinson RG (eds) Social determinants of health, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Barbeau EM, Krieger N, Soobader MJ (2004) Working class matters: socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender, and smoking in NHIS 2000. Am J Public Health 94:269–278PubMedCrossRef

Huisman M, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP (2005) Educational inequalities in smoking among men and women aged 16 years and older in 11 European countries. Tob Control 14:106–113PubMedCrossRef

10.

Lopez AD, Collishaw NE, Piha T (1994) A descriptive model of the cigarette epidemic in developed countries. Tob Control 3:242–247CrossRef

11.

Colman G, Remler D (2004) Vertical equity consequences of very high cigarette tax increases. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA

12.

Barnett R, Pearce J, Moon G (2009) Community inequality and smoking cessation in New Zealand, 1981–2006. Soc Sci Med 68:876–884PubMedCrossRef

13.

Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2001) Living in Britain: results from the 2000–1 general household survey. The Stationary Office, London

14.

Graham H (1996) Smoking prevalence among women in the European community 1950–1990. Soc Sci Med 43:243–254PubMedCrossRef

15.

Garfinkel L (1997) Trends in cigarette smoking in the United States. Prev Med 26:447–450PubMedCrossRef

16.

Giskes K, Kunst AE, Benach J et al (2005) Trends in smoking behaviour between 1985 and 2000 in nine European countries by education. J Epidemiol Community Health 59:395–401PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hill SE, Blakely TA, Fawcett JM, Howden-Chapman P (2005) Could mainstream anti-smoking programs increase inequalities in tobacco use? New Zealand data from 1981–96. Aust N Z J Public Health 29:279–284PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kanjilal S, Gregg EW, Cheng YJ et al (2006) Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in 4 major risk factors for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971–2002. Arch Intern Med 166:2348–2355PubMedCrossRef

19.

Lee DJ, LeBlanc W, Fleming LE, Gomez-Marin O, Pitman T (2004) Trends in US smoking rates in occupational groups: the National Health Interview Survey 1987–1994. J Occup Environ Med 46:538–548PubMedCrossRef

20.

Lee DS, Chiu M, Manuel DG et al (2009) Trends in risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Canada: temporal, socio-demographic and geographic factors. CMAJ 181:E55–E66PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

21.

Millar WJ, Stephens T (1993) Social status and health risks in Canadian adults: 1985 and 1991. Health Rep 5:143–156PubMed

22.

Najman JM, Toloo G, Siskind V (2006) Socioeconomic disadvantage and changes in health risk behaviours in Australia: 1989–90 to 2001. Bull World Health Organ 84:976–984PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

23.

Smith P, Frank J, Mustard C (2009) Trends in educational inequalities in smoking and physical activity in Canada: 1974–2005. J Epidemiol Community Health 63:317–323PubMedCrossRef

24.

Harper S, Lynch J (2007) Selected comparisons of measures of health disparities: a review using databases relevant to healthy people 2010 cancer-related objectives. NCI cancer surveillance monograph series, Number 7. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute

25.

Lund KE, Roenneberg A, Hafstad A (1995) The social and demographic diffusion of the tobacco epidemic in Norway. In: Slama K (ed) Tobacco and health. Plenum Press, New York, pp 565–571CrossRef

26.

Federico B, Kunst AE, Vannoni F, Damiani G, Costa G (2004) Trends in educational inequalities in smoking in northern, mid and southern Italy, 1980–2000. Prev Med 39:919–926PubMedCrossRef

27.

Osler M, Gerdes LU, Davidsen M et al (2000) Socioeconomic status and trends in risk factors for cardiovascular diseases in the Danish MONICA population, 1982–1992. J Epidemiol Community Health 54:108–113PubMedCrossRef

28.

Hiscock R, Bauld L, Amos A, Platt S (2012) Smoking and socioeconomic status in England: the rise of the never smoker and the disadvantaged smoker. J Public Health 34:390–396CrossRef

29.

Winkleby MA, Fortmann SP, Rockhill B (1992) Trends in cardiovascular disease risk factors by educational level: the Stanford Five-City Project. Prev Med 21:592–601PubMedCrossRef

30.

Corsi DJ, Lear SA, Chow CK, Subramanian SV, Boyle MH, Teo KK (2013) Socioeconomic and geographic patterning of smoking behaviour in Canada: a cross-sectional multilevel analysis. PLoS ONE 8:e57646PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

31.

Reid JL, Hammond D, Burkhalter R, Ahmed R (2012) Tobacco use in Canada: patterns and trends, 2012th edn. Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

32.

Bains N (2009) Standardization of rates. Association of Public Health Epidemiologists in Ontario, Toronto, ON

33.

Honaker J, King G, Blackwell M (2011) Amelia II: a program for missing data. J Stat Softw 47:1–47

34.

Honaker J, King G (2010) What to do about missing values in time series cross-section data. Am J of Pol Sci 54:561–581CrossRef

35.

Tomz M, Wittenberg J, King G (2003) CLARIFY: software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. J Stat Softw 8:1–30

36.

US Dept of Health and Human Services (1989) Reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. A report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health

37.

Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A (2010) Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. J Health Econ 29:1–28PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

38.

Clarke W (2000) 100 years of education. Can Soc Trends 59(Winter):3–7

39.

Harper S, Lynch J (2005) Methods for measuring cancer disparities: using data relevant to healthy people 2010 cancer-related objectives. NCI cancer surveillance monograph series, number 6. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute

40.

Hayes LJ, Berry G (2002) Sampling variability of the Kunst-Mackenbach relative index of inequality. J Epidemiol Community Health 56:762–765PubMedCrossRef

41.

Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE (1997) Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: an overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe. Soc Sci Med 44:757–771PubMedCrossRef

42.

Forey B (2002) International smoking statistics: a collection of historical data from 30 economically developed countries, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

43.

Cornfield J, Haenszel W, Hammond EC, Lilienfeld AM, Shimkin MB, Wynder EL (2009) Smoking and lung cancer: recent evidence and a discussion of some questions. 1959. Int J Epidemiol 38:1175–1191PubMedCrossRef

44.

Omran AR (1971) The epidemiologic transition. A theory of the epidemiology of population change. Milbank Mem Fund Q 49:509–538PubMedCrossRef

45.

Corsi DJ, Chow CK, Lear SA, Subramanian SV, Teo KK, Boyle MH (2012) Smoking in context: a multilevel analysis of 49,088 communities in Canada. Am J Prev Med 43:601–610PubMedCrossRef

46.

Reid JL, Hammond D (2012) Tobacco use in Canada: patterns and trends, 2012 edition (supplement: tobacco control policies in Canada). Propel Centre for Population Health Impact, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

47.

Legleye S, Khlat M, Beck F, Peretti-Watel P (2011) Widening inequalities in smoking initiation and cessation patterns: a cohort and gender analysis in France. Drug Alcohol Depend 117:233–241PubMedCrossRef

48.

Frohlich KL, Potvin L (2008) Transcending the known in public health practice: the inequality paradox: the population approach and vulnerable populations. Am J Public Health 98:216–221PubMedCrossRef

Title: Trends in smoking in Canada from 1950 to 2011: progression of the tobacco epidemic according to socioeconomic status and geography
Authors: Daniel J. Corsi
Michael H. Boyle
Scott A. Lear
Clara K. Chow
Koon K. Teo
S. V. Subramanian
Publication date: 01-01-2014
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-013-0307-9

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

CXCR4 pathway associated with family history of melanoma

Do longer formula feeding and later introduction of solids increase risk for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia?

Erratum to: The association of active smoking with multiple cancers: national census-cancer registry cohorts with quantitative bias analysis

Tobacco smoking, NBS1 polymorphisms, and survival in lung and upper aerodigestive tract cancers with semi-Bayes adjustment for hazard ratio variation

Circadian pathway genes in relation to glioma risk and outcome

Physical activity, sex steroid, and growth factor concentrations in pre- and post-menopausal women: a cross-sectional study within the EPIC cohort

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer