Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29909369›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Socioeconomic status and cigarette expenditure among US households: results from 2010 to 2015 Consumer Expenditure Survey.

Mohammad Siahpush, Paraskevi A Farazi, Shannon I Maloney, Danae Dinkel, Minh N Nguyen, Gopal K Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Selective Reduction of Socioeconomic Disparities in the Experimental Tobacco Marketplace: Effects of Cigarette and E-cigarette Flavor Restrictions.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A new Swedish reference for total and prepubertal height.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mohammad SiahpushDepartment of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Paraskevi A FaraziDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Shannon I MaloneyDepartment of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Danae DinkelSchool of Health and Kinesiology, College of Education, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Minh N NguyenDepartment of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Gopal K SinghU.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Office of Health Equity, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo examine (1) the association between household socioeconomic status (SES) and whether a household spends money on cigarettes and (2) socioeconomic variations in proportion of total household expenditure spent on cigarettes among smoking households.

methodsWe pooled data from six consecutive years, 2010-2015, of the Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey. The interviews involved a structured questionnaire about household income, demographics and expenditures including expenditure on cigarettes. Households that reported cigarette expenditure in the previous 3 months were distinguished as smoking households. SES indicators were household poverty status, education and occupation of the head of household. Logistic regression was used to assess the association of household smoking status with SES. Fractional logistic regression was used to assess the association of cigarette expenditure as a proportion of total household expenditure with SES. The analysis sample size was 39 218.

resultsThe probability of spending money on cigarettes was higher among lower SES households. Households in poverty compared with those above 300% of poverty threshold had 1.86 (95% CI 1.61 to 2.16), households headed by a person with less than high school education compared with those headed by a person with at least a bachelor's degree had 3.37 (95% CI 2.92 to 3.89) and households headed by a blue-collar work compared with those headed by a person in a managerial occupation had 1.45 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.66) higher odds of spending money on cigarettes. Similarly, the proportion of total household expenditure spent on cigarettes was higher among lower SES smoking households.

conclusionLower SES households are more likely to spend money on cigarettes and spend a larger proportion of their total expenditure on cigarettes. We recommend strategies effective in reducing smoking among low SES smokers.

Indexed as

Social ClassAdolescentAdultAgedCigarette SmokingCross-Sectional StudiesEducational StatusFamily CharacteristicsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPovertySmoking Cessationeconomicsepidemiologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID29909369
PMCPMC6009464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.