Educational and wealth inequalities in tobacco use among men and women in 54 low-income and middle-income countries.

Socioeconomic differentials of tobacco smoking in high-income countries are well described. However, studies to support health policies and place monitoring systems to tackle socioeconomic inequalities in smoking and smokeless tobacco use common in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) are seldom reported. We aimed to describe, sex-wise, educational and wealth-related inequalities in tobacco use in LMICs. We analysed Demographic and Health Survey data on tobacco use collected from large nationally representative samples of men and women in 54 LMICs. We estimated the weighted prevalence of any current tobacco use (including smokeless tobacco) in each country for 4 educational groups and 4 wealth groups. We calculated absolute and relative measures of inequality, that is, the slope index of inequality (SII) and relative index of inequality (RII), which take into account the distribution of prevalence across all education and wealth groups and account for population size. We also calculated the aggregate SII and RII for low-income (LIC), lower-middle-income (lMIC) and upper-middle-income (uMIC) countries as per World Bank classification. Male tobacco use was highest in Bangladesh (70.3%) and lowest in Sao Tome (7.4%), whereas female tobacco use was highest in Madagascar (21%) and lowest in Tajikistan (0.22%). Among men, educational inequalities varied widely between countries, but aggregate RII and SII showed an inverse trend by country wealth groups. RII was 3.61 (95% CI 2.83 to 4.61) in LICs, 1.99 (95% CI 1.66 to 2.38) in lMIC and 1.82 (95% CI 1.24 to 2.67) in uMIC. Wealth inequalities among men varied less between countries, but RII and SII showed an inverse pattern where RII was 2.43 (95% CI 2.05 to 2.88) in LICs, 1.84 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.21) in lMICs and 1.67 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.42) in uMICs. For educational inequalities among women, the RII varied much more than SII varied between the countries, and the aggregate RII was 14.49 (95% CI 8.87 to 23.68) in LICs, 3.05 (95% CI 1.44 to 6.47) in lMIC and 1.58 (95% CI 0.33 to 7.56) in uMIC. Wealth inequalities among women showed a pattern similar to that of men: the RII was 5.88 (95% CI 3.91 to 8.85) in LICs, 1.76 (95% CI 0.80 to 3.85) in lMIC and 0.39 (95% CI 0.09 to 1.64) in uMIC. In contrast to men, among women, the SII was pro-rich (higher smoking among the more advantaged) in 13 of the 52 countries (7 of 23 lMIC and 5 of 7 uMIC). Our results confirm that socioeconomic inequalities tobacco use exist in LMIC, varied widely between the countries and were much wider in the lowest income countries. These findings are important for better understanding and tackling of socioeconomic inequalities in health in LMIC.

Sreeramareddy CT ，Harper S ，Ernstsen L 《-》

24-Year trends in educational inequalities in adult smoking prevalence in the context of a national tobacco control program: The case of Brazil.

Brazil was a low and middle-income country (LMIC) in the late-1980s when it implemented a robust national tobacco-control program (NTCP) amidst rapid gains in national incomes and gender equality. We assessed changes in smoking prevalence between 1989 and 2013 by education level and related these changes to trends in educational inequalities in smoking. Data were from four nationally representative cross-sectional surveys (1989, n = 25,298; 2003 n = 3845; 2008 n = 28,938; 2013 n = 47,440, ages 25-69 years). We estimated absolute (slope index of inequality, SII) and relative (relative index of inequality, RII) educational inequalities in smoking prevalence, separately for males and females. Additional analyses stratified by birth-cohort to assess generational differences. Smoking declined significantly between 1989 and 2013 in all education groups but declines among females were steeper in higher-educated groups. Consequently, both absolute and relative educational inequalities in female smoking widened threefold between 1989 and 2013 (RII: 1.31 to 3.60, SII: 5.3 to 15.0), but absolute inequalities in female smoking widened mainly until 2003 (SII: 15.8). Conversely, among males, declines were steeper in higher-educated groups only in relative terms. Thus, relative educational inequalities in male smoking widened between 1989 and 2013 (RII: 1.58 to 3.19) but mainly until 2008 (3.22), whereas absolute equalities in male smoking were unchanged over the 24-year period (1989: 21.1 vs. 2013: 23.2). Younger-cohorts (born ≥1965) had wider relative inequalities in smoking vs. older-cohorts at comparable ages, particularly in the youngest female-cohorts (born 1979-1988). Our results suggest that younger lower-SES groups, especially females, may be particularly vulnerable to differentially higher smoking uptake in LMICs that implement population tobacco-control efforts amidst rapid societal gains.

Bandi P ，Chang VW ，Sherman SE ，Silver D ... -  《-》

Inequalities in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and its risk factors in Sri Lanka: a lower middle income country.

De Silva AP ，De Silva SHP ，Haniffa R ，Liyanage IK ，Jayasinghe S ，Katulanda P ，Wijeratne CN ，Wijeratne S ，Rajapaksa LC ... -  《International Journal for Equity in Health》

Socioeconomic Inequalities in Secondhand Smoke Exposure at Home and at Work in 15 Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

In high-income countries, secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is higher among disadvantaged groups. We examine socioeconomic inequalities in SHS exposure at home and at workplace in 15 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Secondary analyses of cross-sectional data from 15 LMICs participating in Global Adult Tobacco Survey (participants ≥ 15 years; 2008-2011) were used. Country-specific analyses using regression-based methods were used to estimate the magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities in SHS exposure: (1) Relative Index of Inequality and (2) Slope Index of Inequality. SHS exposure at home ranged from 17.4% in Mexico to 73.1% in Vietnam; exposure at workplace ranged from 16.9% in Uruguay to 65.8% in Bangladesh. In India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Uruguay, Poland, Turkey, Ukraine, and Egypt, SHS exposure at home reduced with increasing wealth (Relative Index of Inequality range: 1.13 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.22] in Turkey to 3.31 [95% CI 2.91-3.77] in Thailand; Slope Index of Inequality range: 0.06 [95% CI 0.02-0.11] in Turkey to 0.43 [95% CI 0.38-0.48] in Philippines). In these 11 countries, and in China, SHS exposure at home reduced with increasing education. In India, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Philippines, SHS exposure at workplace reduced with increasing wealth. In India, Bangladesh, Thailand, Philippines, Vietnam, Poland, Russian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, and Egypt, SHS exposure at workplace reduced with increasing education. SHS exposure at homes is higher among the socioeconomically disadvantaged in the majority of LMICs studied; at workplaces, exposure is higher among the less educated. Pro-equity tobacco control interventions alongside targeted efforts in these groups are recommended to reduce inequalities in SHS exposure. SHS exposure is higher among the socioeconomically disadvantaged groups in high-income countries. Comprehensive smoke-free policies are pro-equity for certain health outcomes that are strongly influenced by SHS exposure. Using nationally representative Global Adult Tobacco Survey (2008-2011) data from 15 LMICs, we studied socioeconomic inequalities in SHS exposure at homes and at workplaces. The study showed that in most LMICs, SHS exposure at homes is higher among the poor and the less educated. At workplaces, SHS exposure is higher among the less educated groups. Accelerating implementation of pro-equity tobacco control interventions and strengthening of efforts targeted at the socioeconomically disadvantaged groups are needed to reduce inequalities in SHS exposure in LMICs.

Nazar GP ，Lee JT ，Arora M ，Millett C ... -  《-》

Evolution of socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: results from the Portuguese national health interview surveys.

Alves J ，Kunst AE ，Perelman J 《BMC PUBLIC HEALTH》