Socioeconomic differences in tobacco outlet presence, density, and proximity in four cities in the Netherlands

BMC Public Health

Research

Bas van den Putte¹  Els M. Veldhuizen²  Mirte A.G. Kuipers³  Tessa R.D. van Deelen³  Anton E. Kunst³ 

[1] Amsterdam School of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam, 15791, 1001 NG, Amsterdam, Postbus, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Geography and Planning, University of Amsterdam, 15629, 1001 NC, Amsterdam, Postbus, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Public Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 22660, 1100 DD, Postbus, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;

关键词: Tobacco outlet;    Presence;    Density;    Proximity;    Socioeconomic;    Inequality;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-023-16347-7

 received in 2023-03-21, accepted in 2023-07-19,  发布年份 2023

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundPrevious studies found that tobacco outlets were unevenly distributed by area socioeconomic status (SES). However, evidence from continental Europe is limited. This study aims to assess differences in tobacco outlet presence, density and proximity by area SES in the Netherlands.MethodsAll tobacco outlets in four Dutch cities (Amsterdam, and medium-sized cities Eindhoven, Haarlem, and Zwolle) were mapped between September 2019 and June 2020. We estimated associations between average property value of neighbourhoods (as an indicator of SES, grouped into quintiles) and (1) tobacco outlet presence in the neighbourhood (yes/no), (2) density (per km2), and (3) proximity to the closest outlet (in meters), using logistic and linear regression models.Results46% of neighbourhoods contained at least one tobacco outlet. Tobacco outlets were mostly situated in city centres, but the distribution of tobacco outlets varied per city due to differences in urban structures and functions. In the medium-sized cities, each quintile higher neighbourhood-SES was associated with lower tobacco outlet presence (OR:0.71, 95%CI:0.59;0.85), lower density (B:-1.20 outlets/km2, 95%CI:-2.20;-0.20) and less proximity (B:40.2 m, 95%CI 36.58;43.83). Associations were the other way around for Amsterdam (OR:1.22, 95%CI:1.05;1.40, B:3.50, 95%CI:0.81;6.20, and B:-18.45, 95%CI:-20.41;-16.49, respectively). Results were similar for most types of tobacco outlets.ConclusionIn medium-sized cities in the Netherlands, tobacco outlets were more often located in low-SES neighbourhoods than high-SES. Amsterdam presented a reverse pattern, possibly due to its unique urban structure. We discuss how licensing might contribute to reducing tobacco outlets in low-SES neighbourhoods.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

【 图 表 】

Fig. 2

Fig. 7

Fig. 1