Patterns and prevalence of daily tobacco smoking in Australia by industry and occupation: 2007-2016.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION\nAustralian workers daily tobacco smoking over time was examined by industry, and occupation, to identify factors associated with high/low prevalence.\n\n\nMETHODS\nSecondary analyses of 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Surveys were undertaken (pooled n=49,395). Frequency analyses informed subsequent modelling of select industries and occupations. Four logistic regression models estimated adjusted effects of demographics on daily smoking in industries with high (≥20%) and low (≤15%) daily smoking prevalence, and occupations with high (≥20%) and moderate/low (<20%) daily smoking prevalence.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe sample comprised: 55.7% men; 34.1% 25-39 year olds; 31.4% New South Wales residents; 70.1% metropolitan residents; 66.9% high SES workers; and 70.6% with low psychological distress. Daily smoking prevalence differed by industry and occupation in 2007, generally decreasing between 2007-2016. In high prevalence industries, daily smoking was associated with male gender and age (25-39 year olds); and in low prevalence industries with males and non-metropolitan workers. In high prevalence occupations, daily smoking was associated with males, female non-metropolitan workers, and age 25-39 years; and in moderate/low prevalence occupations with non-metropolitan workers, and negatively associated with females aged 14-24 years. In all models, increased odds of daily smoking were associated with low socio-economic status and very high psychological distress.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nLow socio-economic status and very high psychological distress were risk factors for daily smoking regardless of industry, occupation, or high pre-existing smoking prevalence. Targeted, as well as universal, interventions are required for workplaces and workers with greatest smoking vulnerability and least smoking cessation progress.\n\n\nIMPLICATIONS\nSpecific strategies are warranted for identified industries, occupations and subgroups with increased odds of daily tobacco smoking. Industries/occupations with moderate/low smoking prevalence may confer workers some protection but are not without risk; some subgroups in these settings (e.g., non-metropolitan areas), had elevated daily smoking risk. Hence, the following are supported: 1. Universal interventions directed at low socio-economic workers, and workers with very high psychological distress regardless of workplace; 2. Interventions targeted at high prevalence industries; 3. Cessation efforts targeted for young workers in high prevalence industries/occupations, and 4. Focussed interventions addressing specific needs of non-metropolitan at-risk workers in low prevalence industries.