The application of household expenditure data in the development of anti‐smoking campaigns

Household tobacco expenditure and associated characteristics during substantial regular tobacco tax increases: analysis from a nationally representative longitudinal study in Australia from 2006 to 2022

OBJECTIVE

We investigated household tobacco expenditure by socioeconomic status and examined the associated factors in Australia from 2006 to 2022, incorporating a period of substantial regular tobacco tax increases (2010-2020).  METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of household data from the Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey to examine differences in household tobacco expenditure by Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). Descriptive analyses were performed for all households and those with any tobacco expenditure, with dollar values adjusted for inflation to 2022. Linear regression with generalised estimating equations (GEE) assessed associations between different individual-level factors and household tobacco expenditure.

RESULTS

Between 2006 and 2022, smoking prevalence decreased by 5.6% points. Overall average annual household tobacco expenditure decreased by $7.8 ($980.5 to $972.7), while households that purchased tobacco increased spending by $1092.2 ($3839.5 to $4931.7). In 2022, households in the most disadvantaged areas allocated more than double the proportion of their disposable income to tobacco (6.3%) compared with households in the most advantaged areas (2.7%). GEE analysis showed a dose-response relationship between SEIFA category and household tobacco expenditure, with the most disadvantaged households spending an additional $245.5 (95% CI: $193.7-$297.2) compared with the most advantaged households. The additional tobacco-related expenditure for people who currently smoked compared with those who never smoked was $1500.5 (95% CI: $1424-$1577).

CONCLUSION

Disadvantaged households allocated more of their income to tobacco and spent more on tobacco overall than advantaged households, reflecting higher smoking prevalence. Additional non-price-related measures are needed to address these inequities.

The role of dwelling type on food expenditure: a cross-sectional analysis of the 2015-2016 Australian Household Expenditure Survey

OBJECTIVE

To explore differences in proportion of food budget and total food expenditure by dwelling type.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study using data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2015-2016 Household Expenditure Survey. Food expenditure was examined on multiple categories: fresh fruits, fresh vegetables, pre-prepared meals, meals in restaurants, hotels and clubs, and fast food and takeaway meals, using two-part models and zero-one inflated beta regression models. Dwelling types were categorised as separate house, semi-detached house, low-rise apartment and high-rise apartment.

SETTING

Australia, 2015-2016.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven thousand three hundred and fifty-eight households from greater capital city areas.

RESULTS

Households living in high-rise apartments were estimated to allocate a greater proportion of their food budget to meals in restaurants, hotels and clubs, and to spend more (actual dollars) on that category, compared with other dwelling types. No substantial differences were estimated in the proportion of food budget allocated to the other food categories across dwelling types.

CONCLUSIONS

The dwelling type households live in may play a role in their food budget. Households living in a high-rise apartment may potentially spend more on meals in restaurants, hotels and clubs than those living in other dwelling types. Given the growth in urban population and the changes in living arrangements, findings point to the critical need for a better understanding of the influence of dwelling types on food expenditure and call for research investigating the relationship between the two.

A call to action on two fronts: better objectives and better strategies

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to show how health education is a strategy used to achieve the objective of maintenance and improvement in the community's welfare.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper addresses two issues: are health educators attacking the right targets, and are the strategies being developed to attack those targets the right strategies?

Findings

Health education will make the most efficient contribution to long‐term improvement in communities' welfare when it attacks the right targets.

Originality/value

Shows how the strategies used to attack the right targets will be based on the best research available and will involve broader consultation with other disciplines.