84 research outputs found

    Insights into social disparities in smoking prevalence using Mosaic, a novel measure of socioeconomic status: an analysis using a large primary care dataset

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are well-established socio-economic differences in the prevalence of smoking in the UK, but conventional socio-economic measures may not capture the range and degree of these associations. We have used a commercial geodemographic profiling system, Mosaic, to explore associations with smoking prevalence in a large primary care dataset and to establish whether this tool provides new insights into socio-economic determinants of smoking.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analysed anonymised data on over 2 million patients from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database, linked via patients' postcodes to Mosaic classifications (11 groups and 61 types) and quintiles of Townsend Index of Multiple Deprivation. Patients' current smoking status was identified using Read Codes, and logistic regression was used to explore the associations between the available measures of socioeconomic status and smoking prevalence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As anticipated, smoking prevalence increased with increasing deprivation according to the Townsend Index (age and sex adjusted OR for highest vs lowest quintile 2.96, 95% CI 2.92-2.99). There were more marked differences in prevalence across Mosaic groups (OR for group G vs group A 4.41, 95% CI 4.33-4.49). Across the 61 Mosaic types, smoking prevalence varied from 8.6% to 42.7%. Mosaic types with high smoking prevalence were characterised by relative deprivation, but also more specifically by single-parent households living in public rented accommodation in areas with little community support, having no access to a car, few qualifications and high TV viewing behaviour.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Conventional socio-economic measures may underplay social disparities in smoking prevalence. Newer classification systems, such as Mosaic, encompass a wider range of demographic, lifestyle and behaviour data, and are valuable in identifying characteristics of groups of heavy smokers which might be used to tailor cessation interventions.</p

    Community resilience : a policy tool for local government?

    Get PDF
    In many countries, local government has been a prime target of austerity measures. In response, local authorities are exploring a new repertoire of policy approaches in a bid to provide more with less. In England, local authorities have been drawn to community resilience as a pragmatic response to the challenge of deploying shrinking resources to support communities exposed to social and economic disruption. This application of resilience thinking is not without its challenges. It demands a working definition of community resilience that recognises the potential for communities to prove resilient to shocks and disruptions, but avoids blaming them for their predicament. There is also the practical challenge of developing and targeting interventions to promote and protect resilience. This paper sets out to explore these issues and establish the potential utility of community resilience as a policy tool through case study analysis in the city of Sheffield

    Mapping household direct energy consumption in the United Kingdom to provide a new perspective on energy justice

    Get PDF
    Targets for reductions in carbon emissions and energy use are often framed solely in terms of percentage reductions. However, the amount of energy used by households varies greatly, with some using considerably more than others and, therefore, potentially being able to make a bigger contribution towards overall reductions. Using two recently released UK datasets based on combined readings from over 70 million domestic energy meters and vehicle odometers, we present exploratory analyses of patterns of direct household energy usage. Whilst much energy justice work has previously focussed on energy vulnerability, mainly in low consumers, our findings suggest that a minority of areas appear to be placing much greater strain on energy networks and environmental systems than they need. Households in these areas are not only the most likely to be able to afford energy efficiency measures to reduce their impacts, but are also found to have other capabilities that would allow them to take action to reduce consumption (such as higher levels of income, education and particular configurations of housing type and tenure). We argue that these areas should therefore be a higher priority in the targeting of policy interventions
    corecore