18.12.2012 Views

joint strategic needs assessment foundation profile - JSNA

joint strategic needs assessment foundation profile - JSNA

joint strategic needs assessment foundation profile - JSNA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Interative Hull Atlas: www.hullpublichealth.org/Pages/hull_atlas.htm More information: www.jsnaonline.org and www.hullpublichealth.org<br />

This relationship between deprivation or social class and smoking status is also noted<br />

nationally. Figure 85 shows the percentage of current cigarette smoking by social class<br />

from the General Lifestyle Survey 2008 (Economic and Social Data Service, 2008)<br />

previously known as the General Household Survey. The underlying data are given in<br />

the APPENDIX on page 861.<br />

Figure 85: Percentage of adult cigarette smokers from the General Lifestyle Survey by<br />

social class, 2001-2008<br />

Current cigarette smoker (%)<br />

40<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

15<br />

10<br />

5<br />

0<br />

Managerial and<br />

professional<br />

Intermediate Routine and<br />

manual<br />

Managerial and<br />

professional<br />

Men Women<br />

Gender / social class<br />

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008<br />

8.4.6 Smoking in Relation to Employment Status<br />

Intermediate Routine and<br />

manual<br />

It is also possible to examine smoking status in relation to employment status using the<br />

information from the local Prevalence Survey conducted during 2009. Figure 86 shows<br />

that those smoking prevalence was much higher for people looking after the home or<br />

family (46%), those who were not working due to long-term sickness or disability (61%),<br />

and those who were unemployed or not working (63%). These percentages were<br />

considerably lower for the 2007 Health and Lifestyle Survey (41%, 43% and 54%<br />

respectively), and it could be associated with the differing survey methodology (see<br />

footnote 29 on page 249). Furthermore, the total number of people surveyed in the<br />

Prevalence Survey 2009 is less than half that of the Health and Lifestyle Survey 2007 so<br />

the estimates are subject to more variability. The differences in the percentages in<br />

Figure 86 are statistically significant ( 2 test, X=136, df=5, p

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!