Limits...
Large differences in publicly visible health behaviours across two neighbourhoods of the same city.

Nettle D - PLoS ONE (2011)

Bottom Line: The observed disparities between the two neighbourhoods were considerably greater than this model predicted.The differences in observed smoking, drinking alcohol, and physical activity between these two neighbourhoods of the same city are strikingly large, and for smoking and running, their magnitude suggests substantial area effects above and beyond the compositional differences between the neighbourhoods.This may have important implications for the initiation and maintenance of health behaviours, and the persistence of health inequalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Behaviour and Evolution, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom. daniel.nettle@ncl.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background: There are socioeconomic disparities in the likelihood of adopting unhealthy behaviours, and success at giving them up. This may be in part because people living in deprived areas are exposed to greater rates of unhealthy behaviour amongst those living around them. Conventional self-report surveys do not capture these differences in exposure, and more ethological methods are required in order to do so.

Methodology/principal findings: We performed 12 hours of direct behavioural observation in the streets of two neighbourhoods of the same city which were similar in most regards, except that one was much more socioeconomically deprived than the other. There were large differences in the publicly visible health behaviours observed. In the deprived neighbourhood, we observed 266 more adults smoking (rate ratio 3.44), 53 more adults drinking alcohol (rate ratio not calculable), and 38 fewer adults running (rate ratio 0.23), than in the affluent neighbourhood. We used data from the Health Survey for England to calculate the differences we ought to expect to have seen given the individual-level socioeconomic characteristics of the residents. The observed disparities between the two neighbourhoods were considerably greater than this model predicted. There were also different patterns of smoking in proximity to children in the two neighbourhoods.

Conclusions/significance: The differences in observed smoking, drinking alcohol, and physical activity between these two neighbourhoods of the same city are strikingly large, and for smoking and running, their magnitude suggests substantial area effects above and beyond the compositional differences between the neighbourhoods. Because of these differences, individuals residing in deprived areas are exposed to substantially more smoking and public drinking, and less physical activity, as they go about their daily lives, than their affluent peers. This may have important implications for the initiation and maintenance of health behaviours, and the persistence of health inequalities.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

The percentage of social groups consisting of adults only (dark bars) or containing a minor (light bars) which contained a smoker, in areas A and B.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3111468&req=5

pone-0021051-g001: The percentage of social groups consisting of adults only (dark bars) or containing a minor (light bars) which contained a smoker, in areas A and B.

Mentions: Considering social groups containing at least one adult, 2.5% contained a smoker in area A against 10.0% in area B. However, in area A, the probability of containing a smoker varied according to whether there was also a child or baby in the group: 2.8% (99/3540) in groups containing no minors, but 0.2% (1/435) where there were minors present (χ2 = 10.41, p<0.01). In area B, however, the likelihood of the social group containing a smoker was similar whether there were minors in the group or not (277/2710 or 10.2% no minors, 61/684 or 8.9% with minors, χ2 = 1.04, p = 0.31; Figure 1).


Large differences in publicly visible health behaviours across two neighbourhoods of the same city.

Nettle D - PLoS ONE (2011)

The percentage of social groups consisting of adults only (dark bars) or containing a minor (light bars) which contained a smoker, in areas A and B.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3111468&req=5

pone-0021051-g001: The percentage of social groups consisting of adults only (dark bars) or containing a minor (light bars) which contained a smoker, in areas A and B.
Mentions: Considering social groups containing at least one adult, 2.5% contained a smoker in area A against 10.0% in area B. However, in area A, the probability of containing a smoker varied according to whether there was also a child or baby in the group: 2.8% (99/3540) in groups containing no minors, but 0.2% (1/435) where there were minors present (χ2 = 10.41, p<0.01). In area B, however, the likelihood of the social group containing a smoker was similar whether there were minors in the group or not (277/2710 or 10.2% no minors, 61/684 or 8.9% with minors, χ2 = 1.04, p = 0.31; Figure 1).

Bottom Line: The observed disparities between the two neighbourhoods were considerably greater than this model predicted.The differences in observed smoking, drinking alcohol, and physical activity between these two neighbourhoods of the same city are strikingly large, and for smoking and running, their magnitude suggests substantial area effects above and beyond the compositional differences between the neighbourhoods.This may have important implications for the initiation and maintenance of health behaviours, and the persistence of health inequalities.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Centre for Behaviour and Evolution, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom. daniel.nettle@ncl.ac.uk

ABSTRACT

Background: There are socioeconomic disparities in the likelihood of adopting unhealthy behaviours, and success at giving them up. This may be in part because people living in deprived areas are exposed to greater rates of unhealthy behaviour amongst those living around them. Conventional self-report surveys do not capture these differences in exposure, and more ethological methods are required in order to do so.

Methodology/principal findings: We performed 12 hours of direct behavioural observation in the streets of two neighbourhoods of the same city which were similar in most regards, except that one was much more socioeconomically deprived than the other. There were large differences in the publicly visible health behaviours observed. In the deprived neighbourhood, we observed 266 more adults smoking (rate ratio 3.44), 53 more adults drinking alcohol (rate ratio not calculable), and 38 fewer adults running (rate ratio 0.23), than in the affluent neighbourhood. We used data from the Health Survey for England to calculate the differences we ought to expect to have seen given the individual-level socioeconomic characteristics of the residents. The observed disparities between the two neighbourhoods were considerably greater than this model predicted. There were also different patterns of smoking in proximity to children in the two neighbourhoods.

Conclusions/significance: The differences in observed smoking, drinking alcohol, and physical activity between these two neighbourhoods of the same city are strikingly large, and for smoking and running, their magnitude suggests substantial area effects above and beyond the compositional differences between the neighbourhoods. Because of these differences, individuals residing in deprived areas are exposed to substantially more smoking and public drinking, and less physical activity, as they go about their daily lives, than their affluent peers. This may have important implications for the initiation and maintenance of health behaviours, and the persistence of health inequalities.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus