Cited by 1,572Smoking Behavior and CessationHealth disparities and outcomesGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review

Hiscock, Rosemary, Bauld, Linda, Amos, Amanda, Fidler, Jennifer A., Munafò, Marcus·2012·Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Smoking prevalence is higher among disadvantaged groups, and disadvantaged smokers may face higher exposure to tobacco's harms. Uptake may also be higher among those with low socioeconomic status (SES), and quit attempts are less likely to be successful. Studies have suggested that this may be the result of reduced social support for quitting, low motivation to quit, stronger addiction to tobacco, increased likelihood of not completing courses of pharmacotherapy or behavioral support sessions, psychological differences such as lack of self‐efficacy, and tobacco industry marketing. Evidence of interventions that work among lower socioeconomic groups is sparse. Raising the price of tobacco products appears to be the tobacco control intervention with the most potential to reduce health inequalities from tobacco. Targeted cessation programs and mass media interventions can also contribute to reducing inequalities. To tackle the high prevalence of smoking among disadvantaged groups, a combination of tobacco control measures is required, and these should be delivered in conjunction with wider attempts to address inequalities in health.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06202.x

Cites

147 of 147 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hiscock, R., Bauld, L., Amos, A., Fidler, J. A., & Munafò, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hiscock, Rosemary
Venue
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-11-17
Volume
1248
Issue
1
Pages
107-123
ISSN
  • 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
  • 1749-6632
OpenAlex
W1948861157
Cited by
1,572
References
147
Citations by year
2026: 100 · 2025: 125 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 124 · 2022: 132 · 2021: 138 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 147 · 2018: 110 · 2017: 111 · 2016: 104 · 2015: 103 · 2014: 69 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 18
FWCI
4.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Cancer Research UK
  • British Heart Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
socioeconomic status, smoking, health disparities, tobacco control, smoking cessation, tobacco industry marketing, self-efficacy, tobacco pricing, mass media interventions, disadvantaged groups
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Humans, Poverty, Smoking, Social Support, Socioeconomic Factors, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Tobacco Use Disorder, Smoking Cessation, Health Status Disparities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review