International Journal of Environment, Ecology,

Family and Urban Studies (IJEEFUS)

ISSN(P): 2250-0065; ISSN(E): 2321-0109
Vol. 6, Issue 2, Apr 2016, 25-36
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

SOCIOECONOMIC PATTERNING OF SMOKING AND

TOBACCO CONSUMPTION IN INDIA
KUMKUM PANDEY & DEEPA VINAY
Department of Family Resource Management, College of Home Science, G. B. P.U. A & T, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India
ABSTRACT
There is a paucity of information on prevalence and pattern of smoking and tobacco consumption in India and
this study was planned to assess the socioeconomic status, prevalence and pattern of smoking and tobacco consumption
in the people of the rural area of Bihar District, who were working in the rice mill of Uttarakhand state, India. The study
was conducted among 60 male subjects, aged 19-48 years, in Rudrapur block of KLA rice mill. Data on sociodemographic details, smoking and tobacco chewing were collected by using the standardized Socio Economic Status
(SES) scale and developed precoded interview schedule. Results revealed that most indicators of SES were related to the
lower category as well as smoking status and tobacco chewing rates were very high among them, which may pull the
individual and the entire family below the poverty line. The strong and well known relationship between SES, smoking
and tobacco chewing were also found there. Hence there is a need of interventions which may help in reducing the
burden in this area.

Received: Feb 29, 2016; Accepted: Mar 22, 2016; Published: Mar 28, 2016; Paper Id.: IJEEFUSAPR20164

INTRODUCTION

Original Article

KEYWORDS: SES Heart Diseases Smoking Tobacco Control

Tobacco was introduced in India by Portuguese barely 400 years ago during the Mughal era. Mainly due
to a potpourri of different cultures in the country, tobacco rapidly became a part of socio cultural milieu in various
communities, especially in the eastern, north eastern and southern parts of the country. Thus India is the second
largest producer and consumer of tobacco in the world after China (Wong et al., 2013). The prevalence of tobacco
use among adults (15 years and above) is 35%. The prevalence of overall tobacco use among males is 48 percent
and that among females is 20 percent. Nearly two in five (38%) adults in rural areas and one in four (25%) adults
in urban areas use tobacco in some form (Gupta et al., 2013).
Therefore in the World Health Report (2002) tobacco is cited as the most important preventable cause
of overall mortality as well as cardiovascular mortality worldwide. While cigarette smokers are found worldwide
smokeless tobacco use is restricted to certain geographic areas (Warren et al., 2000). Multiple studies have
reported that all forms of tobacco use (smoked, smokeless and other forms) are highly prevalent in youth and adult
and in both men and women in India (Ray, Gupta and Beyer, 2003). Tobacco chewing is a unique habit of Indian
subcontinent and is consumed in form of pan, gutka, mawa, khaini, mainpuri, etc. Because of its easy availability
tobacco chewing and smoking is rapidly increasing and affecting all age groups, genders and has become a major
public and social health concern. While cigarette smoking is concerned as a major risk factor for coronary heart
disease and ischemic stroke, cancer, chronic lung disease and premature morbidity and mortality. In India smoking

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

26

Kumkum Pandey & Deepa Vinay

has been correlated with increased mortality from pulmonary tuberculosis (Gajalakshmi et al., 2003) and Nicotine is one
of the important substances present in tobacco and has direct toxic effects on cardiovascular system (Behera et al, 2003).
Despite the preventive measures implemented by government it is still one of the major causes of avoidable
illnesses and premature death. Certainly, smoking cessation is a dynamic process with different levels of motivation and
confidence in quitting (Buja, A. et al., (2011), Some authors tried to investigate whether an effective association between
smoking and socioeconomic status exists: they have demonstrated that males with a low social status have a high
probability of starting to smoke and a low probability of quitting smoking [Sardu et al., (2009), Chiatti et al., (2010) and
Roncarolo et al., (2008)].
Now the question arises why do people of lower SES are more prone to persist in smoking? Therefore it is an
important public health problem, especially in and it poses a greater burden on minority, low income, and low literacy
populations. Thus the aim of this study was to describe socioeconomic status (SES), cessation rates of smoking and
tobacco chewing with the probability and prevalence of smoking, tobacco chewing, taking up and quitting of this habit.
Conversely, the goals of the present study were (a) to evaluate the existence of socioeconomic status (b) to verify smoking
habits in the Indian population and (c) to establish association between SES factors, tobacco use and smoking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was based on the personal survey in 2013. In the survey a standardized SES scale (Singh and Vinay,
2013) was adapted to find out the background information of the respondents and the social history questionnaire was used
to elicit information about tobacco chewing behaviour and smoking habits and their frequencies. Whereas a focussed group
discussion (FGD) was done to know that what are the factors that are compelling them to continuation of this habit and
what will be the recommendations. The sample population of this study was purposively taken from the KLA rice mill of
Rudrapur block, Uttarakhand by considering all individuals aged between 19-48 years, regardless of their health
conditions. This descriptive data were collected from all the 60 respondents personally using the precoded interview
schedule. A visit was made to all the selected respondents, prior to data collection in order to establish a rapport with the
respondents as well as with owners to ensure full cooperation from them. The respondents were interviewed personally and
helped to understand clearly the term used so as to avoid misinterpretation of words and elicit reliable data.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Socioeconomic Status of the Respondents
Socioeconomic status (SES) is combined economic and socio measure of a person's work experience and of an
individual's or familys economic and social position in relation to others, based on income, education, and occupation. It is
categorized into five levels, high upper class, upper class, middle class, lower class and very low (poorest) class to describe
the five areas of family or an individual may fall into.
The socioeconomic profile of the respondents is documented in Table 1. The perusal of the Table indicates that,
the age determines the maturity of an individual and has a bearing on thinking, experience and exposure of a person that
are achieved at different stages of life. On the basis of arbitrary class intervals, perusal of the analyzed data showed that
majority of the respondents i.e. 63.33 percent fell under the category of 19-28 years, whereas 23.33 percent were
representing 29-38 years of age and only 13.33 percent were belonging to the age group of 39-48 years.

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Socioeconomic Patterning of Smoking and Tobacco Consumption in India

27

The data regarding caste revealed that only small representation i.e. 10 percent respondents belonged to the
vashya caste, whereas 63.33 percent were from schedule caste and 26.66 percent were reported to be backward by caste.
In terms of education level of selected respondents it was observed that out of total respondents 18.33 percent
were illiterate, whereas a larger proportion i.e. 60 percent were functionally literate, 15 percent were found to be educated
up to primary level, remaining 6.66 percent were reported to be secondary educated. On the whole regarding family type
53.33 percent respondents had a single family, 36.66 percent nuclear family, only 5 percent had joint family and none were
under the category of extended family as reported by the respondents.
Table 1: Distribution of Respondents as Per Age, Caste/ Class,
Education Type of Family and Type of House (N-60)
S. No.

Characteristics
Age
a)
b)
c)

19-28 years
29-38 years
39-48 years

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)

Caste/ class
Brahmin
Kshatriya
Vaishya
Schedule caste
Schedule Tribe
Backward
Any other

F (P)

S. No.
4

38 (63.33)
14 (23.33)
8 (13.33)
5
6 (10)
38 (63.33)
16 (26.66)
-

Characteristics
Type of Family
a) Single
b) Nuclear
c) Joint
d) Extended
Living in a Type of House
a) No place to live,
pavement, mobile cart
b) Jhuggi / Hut
c) Kachcha house
d) Mixed house
e) Pakka with tin shade
f) Pakka with Linter

F (P)
35 (58.33)
22 (36.66)
3 (5)
-

22 (36.66)
17 (28.33)
15 (25)
6 (10)

Education
a)
Illiterate
11 (18.33)
3
b)
Functionally literate
36 (60)
c)
Primary education
9 (15)
d)
Secondary education
4 (6.66)
Values in parentheses indicate percentage * F (P): Frequency (Percentage)
As per the findings, the majority of respondents i.e. 36.66 percent were found to possessed kaccha type of house,
followed by 28.33 percent had mixed house, while 25 per cent respondents possessed pakka house with tin shade, whereas
only 10 percent respondents were residing in pakka with linter house and none of the respondents had jhuggi or hut and no
place to live. Material style of life is important for socioeconomic status and has also been found to be associated with
material possessions. This item has four sub categories such as kitchen, furniture, entertainment and electrical resources.
Multiple responses had received in this segment. But for the calculation the highest score among the attained scores was
considered. When enquired about the kitchen resources, cent percent respondents were found having traditional chullas
followed by 53.33 percent having pressure cooker, whereas 11.66 percent possessed Gas cylinder (LPG), and none of the
respondents had smokeless chullas, bio gas, cooking range, solar cooker, microwave or oven. In the present investigation
of rice mill workers, the data collected from selected respondents with reference to furniture revealed that out of the total
respondents, 68.33 percent possessed table, 75 percent had chairs, 71.6 percent had stools, 86.66 percent had folding cot,
cent percent had single bed and 56.66 percent had double bed whereas none of respondents to have sofa set, dining table
and sponge mattress.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

28

Kumkum Pandey & Deepa Vinay

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents as Per Material and Family Possessions. (N-60)

Family Possessions / Material
F (P)
F (P)
Possessions
Kitchen resources**
Entertainments resources**
a. Tape recorder or radio
49 (81.66)
a. Traditional chullas
60 (100)
b. Smokeless chullas
b. Music system
36 (60)
c. Pressure cooker
32 (53.33)
c. Mobile or Telephone
60 (100)
7 (11.66)
39 (65)
A d. Gas cylinder(LPG)
C d. Colored T.V.
e. Bio gas
e. Black and white T.V.
21 (35)
f. Cooking range
f. Dish antenna
54 (90)
g. Computer
g. Solar cooker
h. Microwave or Oven
h. Laptop or LED
Furniture resources **
Electrical resources**
a. Table
41 (68.33)
a. Electric press
22 (36.66)
b. Chair
45 (75)
28 (46.44)
b. Heater
c. Stool
43 (71.6)
c. Blower
d. Folding cot
52 (86.66)
B
D d. Mixer grinder
e. Single bed
60 (100)
e. Refrigerator
f. Double bed
34 (56.66)
f. Washing Machine
g. Sofa set
g. Digital camera
h. Dining Table
h. Air condition
i. Sponge mattress
Values in parentheses indicate percentage. **multiple answer given by the respondents, F (P): Frequency (Percentage)
6

Tabulating the responses with respect to means of entertainment resources, a large number i.e. 81.66 percent
respondents possessed tape recorder or radio, followed by 60 percent having music system and all the respondents
possessed mobile or telephone. About 65 percent respondents possessed coloured T.V., while 35 percent had black and
white T.V. and 90 percent had dish antenna, whereas none of the respondents had computer, laptop or LED. The data
pertaining to electrical devices revealed that, 36.66 percent respondents had electric press, 46.66 percent had heater and
none of the respondents had blower, mixer grinder, refrigerator, washing machine, digital camera and air condition. The
findings regarding to possession of agricultural land shows that 18.33 percent of respondents possessed no agricultural land
or landless, 11.66 percent were having agricultural land without irrigation facility, 16.66 percent were having rented or
leased agricultural land, 33.33 percent respondents were having own agricultural land less than 1 acres whereas 20 percent
were possessed own agricultural land between 1-5 acres and none of the respondents were having own agricultural land
between 5.1-10 acres and more than 10 acres.
The results drawn for farm implements showed that all the respondents possessed sickle, pick-axe, shovel and
agricultural hoes, besides these 70 percent respondents used posting digger, 65 percent had land leveller and 76.66 percent
possessed chaff-cutter. It was also reported that 28.33 percent were using agricultural plough followed by 35 percent who
used harrow, 18.33 percent possessed sprayer, 8.33 percent used water pump whereas none of the respondents had thresher,
tiller, tractor and combine harvester.

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Socioeconomic Patterning of Smoking and Tobacco Consumption in India

29

Table 3: Distribution of Respondents as per Agricultural Land, Farm

Implements, Animals and Possession of Vehicle (N-60)
Possession of Agricultural
Land for Cultivation

a. No agricultural land
b. Agricultural land but no irrigation
c. Rented or leased Agricultural land
d. Own agricultural land less than 1 acres
e. Own agricultural land 1 to 5 acres
f. Own agricultural land 5.1 to 10 acres
g. Own agricultural land more than 10 acres
Farm Implements**

F (P)
11 (18.33)
7 (11.66)
10 (16.66)
20 (33.33)
12 (20)
-

Livestock/Animal**

F (P)

a. Poultry
b. Goat
c. Cow
d. Buffalo

7
(11.66)
17
(28.33)
32
(5.33)
37
(61.66)

Possession of
Vehicle**

a. Sickle
60 (100)
b. Pick-axe
60 (100)
c. Shovel
60 (100)
d. Posting digger
42 (70)
7
a. No vehicle
e. Agricultural hoes
60 (100)
(11.66)
b. Bicycle
f. Land leveler
39 (65)
51 (85)
c. Scooty
8
g. Chaff-cutter
46 (76.66)
d. Motor cycle
h. Agricultural plough
17 (28.33)
2 (3.33)
10
e. Jeep
i. Harrow
21 (35)
f. Car
j. Sprayer
11 (18.33)
g. Luxurious car
k. Water pump
5 (8.33)
h. Truck
l. Thresher
m. Tiller
n. Tractor
o. Combined harvester
Values in parentheses indicate percentage, **multiple answer given by the respondents, F (P): Frequency
(Percentage)
Data in terms of livestock/animal revealed that 11.66 percent respondents had poultry, while 28.33 percent
possessed goat, followed by 5.33 percent who owned cow and 61.66 percent had buffalo. It is reported that cattle are the
main source of manure and it is a tradition to keep the cattle in each household, 98 per cent families rear cattle. On an
average numbers of cattle populations was found to be equal with that of human population. (Anonyms, 2012). The data
pertaining to Possession of vehicle shows that 11.66 percent respondent having no vehicle and 85 percent had bicycle,
followed by 3.33 percent having motor cycle. Besides all these none of the respondents were having scooty, jeep, car,
luxurious car and trucks.
With reference to occupation of the head of family, 28.33 percent respondents were unemployed, 76.6 percent had
engaged as unskilled workers and reported as farming workers respectively, followed by 21.66 percent who were semiskilled workers, 8.33 percent had their own shop and majority of the respondents i.e. 93.33 percent had their own farming
as an occupation, whereas none of the respondents was skilled workers or having a clerical job.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

30

Kumkum Pandey & Deepa Vinay

Table 4: Distribution of Respondents as Per the Occupation and Monthly Income (N-60)
Occupation of Head of the
Monthly Family Income from
F (P)
Family**
all Sources
a. Unemployed
17 (28.33)
b. Unskilled workers
46 (76.6)
a. Less than 1000
c. Semi-skilled workers
13 (21.66)
b. 1001-4999
c. 5000-9999
16 (26.66)
11 d. Skilled workers
34 (56.66)
e. Clerical
12 d. 10000-14999
e. 15000-19999
10 (16.66)
f. Shop owner
5 (8.33)
g. Farming
56 (93.33)
f. 20000-24999
h. Semi professional
g. More than 25000
i. Professional
Values in parentheses indicate percentage, **multiple answer given by the respondents, F (P): Frequency (Percentage)
Data collected regarding the monthly family income from all the sources of the respondent revealed that 26.66
percent of the respondents earned monthly family income between 5000- 9999, followed by 56.66 percent (1000014999/month), whereas 16.66 percent respondents were having their family monthly income between 150001-9999/
month. None of the respondents fall in the category of monthly income < 1000, between 1001-4999, 20000-24999 and
>25000/month family income. The data pertaining to the drinking water facility of the respondents were divided into
various categories. The results revealed that only 5 percent of the respondents arranged drinking water from other sources
away from house, 18.33 percent received drinking water from community source but doesnt have drainage, 15 percent
received water from community sources and were having drainage, whereas 11.66 percent respondents arranged facility
from the sharing of same source of water and having kaccha drainage. Majority of the (41.66 percent) respondents had
individual water facility along with kaccha drainage, whereas 8.33 percent had multiple source of drinking water along
with pakka drainage e.g. Tap, tube well etc. And none of the respondents reported to had individual drinking water facility
along with pakka drainage and water purifier.
Table 5: Distribution of the Respondents as Per the Drinking water/ Sanitation facility,
Social Participation and Purchasing of New Papers/Magazine (N-60)

13

Drinking water Facility

F (P)

a. Drinking water is arranged from other

source away from house
b. Drinking water available with
community source without drainage
c. Drinking water available with
community source with drainage
d. Drinking water available for 2-3
house or share the same source of water
with kachcha drainage
e. Individual drinking water facility
along with kachcha drainage (by
goverment)
f. Multiple source of drinking water with
pakka drainage (e.g. Tap, tube well etc)
g. Individual drinking water facility
along with pakka drainage and water
purifier

3 (5)

Social Participation of
Family Members

11 (18.33)
9 (15)
7 (11.66)
15
25 (41.66)

5 (8.33)

a. No availability of Toilet
b. Community pit Toilet

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

a. Without any official position

b. Without any official position
but active participation in
village activities
c. Official position in more
than one organization
d. Financially contribution or
raising fund for common work

52 (86.66)
8 (13.33)

Sanitation Facility
14

F (P)

54 (90)
-

16

Type of New spaper /

Magazine You Pruchase
a. Daily
b. Weekly

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Socioeconomic Patterning of Smoking and Tobacco Consumption in India

31

c. Individual pit Toilet

6 (10)
c. Monthly
d. Community sanitary Toilet without
d. Quaterly
water facility
e. Sometime
e. Individual sanitary Toilet without
water facility
f. Community sanitary Toilet with water
facility
g. Individual sanitary Toilet with water
facility
Values in parentheses indicate percentage * F (P): Frequency ( Percentage)

60 (100)

Similarly the data regarding to sanitation facility revealed that maximum respondents i.e. 90 percent respondents
doesnt had accessed to toilet and only 10 percent had individual pit toilet, whereas none of the respondents had have
accessed to community pit toilet, community sanitary toilet without water facility, individual sanitary toilet without water
facility, community sanitary toilet with water facility and individual sanitary toilet with water facility. It was observed that
responses with respect to Social participation of family members showed that the majority i.e. 86.66 percent of the
respondents reported that they do not have any official position and 13.33 percent reported that they dont have official
position but actively participated in their village activities, while none of the respondents were holding the official position
in more than one organization and financially contribution or raising fund for common work. In terms of newspaper and
magazine purchased results showed that all the respondents read or purchased it sometimes. None of the respondents was
regular reader of buyer of the daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly newspapers or magazines.
Table 6: Norms for Interpretation of Level of Socio-Economic Status
Sr. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Range of z- Scores
+2.01 and above
+1.26 to + 2.00
+0.51 to + 1.25
+0.18 to + 0.50
-0.17 to + 1.17
-0.50 to - 0.18
-0.51and -1.25
-1.26 to 2.00
-2.01 and below

Grade
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

Level of Socio-Economic Status

Extremely Superior
Superior
High
Upper Average
Average/Moderate
Lower Average
Low
Inferior
Extremely Inferior

Class Categories
Top Upper Class
Upper Class
Middle Class
Lower Class
Poorest Class

Table 6 shows the norms for interpretation of level of Socio-Economic status of the workers. Under this scale z
scores were calculated and the different grades were assigned, on the basis of which, the workers level of socioeconomic
status (SES) was determined. In the present investigation the calculated z scores of all the respondents (60) were -2.01 and
below, graded as I, which shows that all the workers were falls under the extremely inferior level of SES.
Smoking Behaviour
Smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the society. Although rates of cigarette smoking have
declined over the past decades, the rates of decline have varied by age, educational level and occupational status, resulting
in significant tobacco related health disparities (Morbidity and mortality Weekly report, 2002). Workers in the blue
collar and service occupations for example, continue to smoke at higher rates than worker in white collar and professional
occupations (Fagan et al., 2004).
The overall collected data shown in table 7 revealed that 86.66 percent respondents were involved in smoking and
the rest 13.33 percent had never been in the habit of smoking. Out of total respondents (52) who were found to be in a habit
www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

32

Kumkum Pandey & Deepa Vinay

of smoking (13.33 percent) reported that they had adopted smoking habit since 6 month to 1 year back, followed by 20
percent who reported to have in habit of smoking since 1 year -1.5 years back, whereas 21.66 percent had a regular habit of
it for 1.6 year- 2 years back and 31.66 percent had a habit of this for more than 2 years ago. It was also revealed that more
than 85 percent i.e. 86.66 percent were still in a regular habit of smoking whereas; none of the respondents had quitted
smoking.
Table 7: Smoking Pattern of Selected Respondents (n-60)
S.
No.

Statemen
ts

Smoked
or ever
smoked

Duration
of
smoking
as a
regular
habit

Responses

Yes
No

6 months-1
year back
1 year- 1.5
years back
1.6 years- 2
years back
More than
2 years
back

F (P)

52 (86.66)
8 (13.33)

8 (13.33)
12 (20)
13 (21.66)
19 (31.66)

S.
No.

Statements

Responses

F (P)

Duration of
quitting
smoking

6 months- 1
years back

1 year-1.5 years
back

1.6 years back-2

years back

More than 2
years back

Number of
cigarettes
smoked per
day

2-4
cigarettes/biddies/day

4-6
cigarettes/biddies/day

6-8
cigarettes/biddies/day

More than 8
cigarettes/biddies/day

9
(15)
17
(28.3
3)
15
(25)
11
(18.3
3)

Still
52 (86.66)
involved
Quitted
Values in parentheses indicate percentage * F (P): Frequency ( Percentage)
3

Smoking
status

When enquired about the consumption of cigarettes/day, out of total respondents who were still in a regular habit
of smoking, 15 percent reported to smoke minimum of 2-4 cigarettes/biddies per day, 28.33 percent of them smoked 4-6
cigarettes/biddies per day, whereas 25 percent smoked 6-8 cigarettes/biddies per day and only 11.33 percent smoked more
than 8 cigarettes/biddies per day. Choudhary (2011) reported that out of the total 296 subjects 104 (35.14) subjects had
habit of smoking, of which hundred (33.78) had habit of bidi smoking. Average number of units smoked per day was
19.986.73 with a range of 5-25 units per day, which is very high as compared to the present research findings. Whereas
Khwaja et al. (2007) found that present-oriented and impulsive people were more prone to cigarette smoking.
Tobacco Chewing
Smokeless is not harmless. Chewing tobacco is a common type of smokeless tobacco. Smokeless tobacco
products consist of tobacco or a tobacco blend thats chewed, sucked on or sniffed, rather than smoked. Chewing tobacco
heightens a users risk for many health problems as smoking.
In the present study, when the respondents were asked about their indulgence in the tobacco chewing, it was seen
that most of them i.e. 81.66 percent used to chew tobacco and only 18.33 percent did not use tobacco in any form. The
habit of chewing tobacco and smoking is increasing because of its free availability, cheaper cost and decreasing education
about well established hazards of smoking. Table 8 clearly reveals that out of total who were in a habit of tobacco chewing,
Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Socioeconomic Patterning of Smoking and Tobacco Consumption in India

33

11.66 percent respondents had started this practice for 6 month 1 year back, 15 percent were in the habit of it since 1
year-1.5 years back, 20 percent were having form 1.6 years-2 years back and 35 percent started it more than 2 years back
respectively. It is showed that 76.66 percent respondents were continuing the tobacco chewing habit but 5 percent of them
had quitted chewing from last one and a half to two years.
Studies on tobacco related mortality in rural areas of Kerala and Andhra Pradesh revealed that the age adjusted
relative risk for overall mortality for tobacco use by men and women ranged between 1.3 and 1.9 with smokers having
higher risks (Gupta and Ray, 2005).
Table 8: Tobacco Chewing Practice of the Selected Respondents (N-60)
S. No.

Statements
Ever been in a habit of
tobacco chewing

Responses
Yes
1
No
6 months- 1 years back
1 year- 1.5 years back
Onset of developing chewing
2
1.6 years- 2 years back
More than 2 years back
Yes
Continuation of habit
3
No
6 months- 1 years back
Duration of quitting the
1 year- 1.5 years back
4
chewing tobacco
1.6 years- 2 years back
More than 2 years back
2-4 sachets/ day
Number of sachets
4-6 sachets/ day
5
chewed/day
6-8 sachets/ day
More than 8 sachets/ day
Values in parentheses indicate percentage * F (P): Frequency ( Percentage)

Frequency
49
11
7
9
12
21
46
3
3
6
15
18
10

Percentage
81.66
18.33
11.66
15
20
35
76.66
5
5
10
25
30
16.66

The respondents who were still continuing with the habit of tobacco chewing revealed that about 10 percent of
them used 12-4 sachets a day, 25 percent consume 4-6 sachets a day, 30 percent used 6-8 sachets per day and 16.66 percent
used to have as many as 6-8 sachets in a day. Overall it can be concluded that all the respondents were under the low
socioeconomic status and are more habitual to the consumption of tobacco directly or in the form of smoking.
Statistical Analysis
Ho: There exist no association between Age education and socio-economic status (SES) on tobacco chewing and
smoking behaviour.
H1: There exist association between Age education and socio-economic status (SES) on tobacco chewing and
smoking behaviour.
Correlation coefficient was calculated to know the association between age, education and SES on tobacco
chewing and smoking. The calculated value showed in table below that age, education and SES have a strong association
upon the tobacco chewing and smoking. It means all the developed hypothesis were rejected and alternated hypothesis
were accepted. It can be concluded that tobacco use and smoking contributes to hospitalization cost and a large proportion
of heart attacks among the young adults is due to tobacco use and sometimes loss of family member is there.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

34

Kumkum Pandey & Deepa Vinay

Table 9: Correlation Coefficient Value of to Test the Association of Age

Education and SES on Smoking and Tobacco Chewing
S. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6

Parameters
Age and tobacco
chewing
Age and smoking
Education and
tobacco chewing
Education and
smoking
SES and tobacco
chewing
SES and smoking

R value

T-value

DF

Table
value

Level of
significance

Significant/non
significant

0.97

11.7

10

0.497

5%

Significant

0.80

5.4

10

0.497

5%

Significant

0.95

9.67

10

0.498

5%

Significant

0.93

7.92

10

0.497

5%

Significant

0.92

6.54

10

0.497

5%

Significant

0.99

8.94

10

0.496

5%

Significant

Similarly Rani et al., (2003) reported that tobacco consumption was significantly higher in poor, less educated,
scheduled castes and scheduled tribe populations. One of the best ways to prompt lower-income smokers to quit is by
raising cigarette prices through cigarette tax increases. Numerous studies have documented the fact that raising the price of
cigarettes directly reduces both adult and youth smoking, particularly among low-income. More smokers would quit if they
had additional help from cessation resources, such as nicotine replacement therapies, other medications and counselling.
Access to cessation services, however, is still quite limited, especially for lower-income smokers (WHO, 2007).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Tobacco use and smoking in U. P. and Uttarakhand is almost at the same level as rest of India but significantly
higher among the poor. Tobacco chewing is increasing among men, children and adolescents possibly due to the smoking
ban in public places and also tobacco industry strategies to shift their focus to smokeless tobacco products which is not
affected by current tobacco control policies. Tobacco use leads to many chronic non-communicable diseases, treatment of
which puts economic burden on the people pulling them below the poverty line. Tobacco control therefore should be a top
priority not only as a health issue but as a poverty reduction issue. Any poverty alleviation programme cannot ignore the
potential impoverishment associated with tobacco use. Uttarakhand with a very strong decentralized government has a very
good opportunity to address tobacco control as a priority at the grass root level.
REFERENCES
1.

Anonyms. (2012). Enhancement of socio-economic status of deprived section of the society.

2.

Behera, D.; Uppal, R.; and Majumdar S. (2003). Urinary levels of nicotinine and cotinine in tobacco users. Indian J Med
Res, 118: 129-33.

3.

Buja, A.; Guarnieri, E.; Forza, G.; Tognazzo, F.; Sandon`a, P. and Zampieron, A.( 2011). Socio-demographic factors and
processes associated with stages of change for smoking cessation in pregnant versus non-pregnant women. BMC Womens
Health, 11, (3).

4.

Chaudhary, S.S. (2011). Prevelance of cardiovascular disease risk factors among auto-rickshaw drivers. Indian Journal of
community health, 22 (2):32-34.

5.

Chiatti, C.; Piat, S.; Federico, B. et al., (2010). Cigarette smoking in young-adult workers: a cross-sectional analysis from
Abruzzo, Italy. Italian Journal of Public Health, 7(3): 243 248.

Impact Factor (JCC): 3.0965

NAAS Rating: 3.63

Socioeconomic Patterning of Smoking and Tobacco Consumption in India

6.

35

Fagan, P.; King, G.; Lawrence, D.; petrucci, S.A.; Robonson, R.G. Banks, D.; Marable, S. And Grana, R. (2004).
Eliminating tobacco-related health disparities-Directions for future research. American Journal of Public Health,, 94 (2): 211217.

7.

Gajalakshmi, V.; Peto, R.; Kanaka, T.S. and Jha P. (2003). Smoking and mortality from tuberculosis and oter diseases in
India: retrospective study of 43000 adult male deaths and 35000 controls. Lancet, 362:507-15.

8.

Gupta B.; Ariyawardana, A. and Johnson. (2013). Oral cancer in India continues in epidemic proportions: evidence base and
policy initiatives International Dental Journal, 63(1): 12.

9.

Gupta PC, Ray CS. (2005). Tobacco related cancer- its impact on the health economy. Health Administration, 17 : 85-92.

10. Khwaja A.; Silverman D. and Sloan, F. (2007). Time preference, time discounting, and smoking decisions. Journal of Health
Economics, 26(5): 927-49.
11. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (2002). Centre for disease control: Annual Smoking-attributable mortality, years of
potential life lost and economic costs-NIOSH1995-1999, 51: 300-303.
12. Rani, M.; Bonu, S.; Jha, P.; Nguyen, S. and Jamjoum L. (2003). Tobacco use in India: prevalence and predictors of smoking
and chewing in a national cross sectional household survey. Tobacco Control;12:e4 doi:10.1136/tc.12.4.e4
13. Ray, C.; Gupta, P.; de, B.J. 2003. Tobacco use surveys and reports. In: research on tobacco in India: an annotated
bibliography of research on use, health effects, economics and control efforts. Washington. World Bank, 1-32.
14. Roncarolo, F.; Ramella, F.; Sacco, S.; Pretti, G.; Bonfanti, M. and Tenconi, M. T. (2008). Mr. Starbene e il Club dei
Vincenti: assessing an anti-smoking campaign for school children. Italian Journal of Public Health, 5 (1):7279.
15. Sardu, C.; Mereu, A.; Minerba, L. and Contu, P. (2009). The Italian national trends in smoking initiation and cessation
according to gender and education. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 50 (3):191195.
16. Singh, D. and Vinay, D. 2012. Socio economic status scale (rural). Mnasi publication, Agra.
17. Warren, C.W.; Riley, L.; Asma, S.; Eriksen, M.P.; Green, L.; Blanton, C. et al., (2000). Tobacco use by youth: a surveillance
report from the Global Youth Survey project. Bull WHO 2000; 78: 868-76.
18. Wong, G.W.K.; Kwon, N.; Hong, J.G.; Hsu, J.Y.; Gunasekera, K.D. (2013). Pediatric asthma control in Asia: Phase 2 of the
Asthma Insights and Reality in Asia-Pacific (AIRIAP 2) survey; 68(4): 524.
19. World Health Organization. (2007). Code of practice on tobacco control for health professional organizations. Geneva.
20. World Health Report (2002). Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva. World Health Organisation, 47-98.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org