Who Reports Greater Chronic Disease Risk Behaviours? A Closer Look at Sociodemographic Differences Among Australian Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

IF 1.5 4区医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH

Health Promotion Journal of Australia Pub Date : 2025-07-15 DOI:10.1002/hpja.70079

Lyra Egan, Siobhan O’Dean, Lauren A. Gardner, Nicola C. Newton, Katrina E. Champion

{"title":"Who Reports Greater Chronic Disease Risk Behaviours? A Closer Look at Sociodemographic Differences Among Australian Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Analysis","authors":"Lyra Egan,  Siobhan O’Dean, Lauren A. Gardner, Nicola C. Newton, Katrina E. Champion","doi":"10.1002/hpja.70079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Recent Australian adolescent data on the prevalence of chronic disease risk behaviours among diverse sociodemographic groups is lacking. This study examined the prevalence of dietary intake (sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs); discretionary foods; fruit; vegetables), and alcohol (standard drink; binge drinking), tobacco, and e-cigarette use, across adolescents of diverse socioeconomic status (SES) and geographical locations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Cross-sectional data were analysed from 4445 adolescents across 71 schools in 2022 as part of the 36-month follow-up survey from the school-based cluster randomised controlled trial, <i>Health4Life</i> (M<sub>age</sub> = 15.7 years, SD = 0.6; 47.0% female-identifying). Fourteen percent (<i>n</i> = 571) were categorised as low SES and 86% (<i>n</i> = 3518) as mid-to-high SES, relative to the study sample, with 9% (<i>n</i> = 399) from regional areas. Binary logistic regressions compared differences for each outcome across SES and geographical locations, controlling for gender, psychological distress, intervention status, and school clustering.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Low SES adolescents had a lower prevalence of excessive discretionary food intake (PR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77–0.99), standard drink consumption (PR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.65–0.93) and binge drinking (PR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.50–0.92) compared to mid-to-high SES adolescents. Regional adolescents had a higher prevalence of standard drink consumption (PR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.00–1.97), binge drinking (PR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.07–2.93), and tobacco smoking (PR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.18–3.60) compared to adolescents in major cities. Excessive discretionary food intake was less prevalent among adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds (PR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.76–0.94) compared to more advantaged adolescents.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Chronic disease risk behaviours among adolescents differ across SES and geographical locations, with regional adolescents fairing considerably worse across alcohol and tobacco use outcomes. Prevention for diet-related behaviours should be improved for more advantaged adolescents, while tailored interventions to SES and geographical location separately may be required for alcohol-, tobacco-, and e-cigarette use.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> So What?</h3>\n \n <p>Public health policy and interventions targeting chronic disease risk behaviours must prioritise the needs of low SES and regional adolescents to reduce health inequities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>The Health4Life trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000431123)</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47379,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Journal of Australia","volume":"36 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hpja.70079","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hpja.70079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Recent Australian adolescent data on the prevalence of chronic disease risk behaviours among diverse sociodemographic groups is lacking. This study examined the prevalence of dietary intake (sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs); discretionary foods; fruit; vegetables), and alcohol (standard drink; binge drinking), tobacco, and e-cigarette use, across adolescents of diverse socioeconomic status (SES) and geographical locations.

Methods

Cross-sectional data were analysed from 4445 adolescents across 71 schools in 2022 as part of the 36-month follow-up survey from the school-based cluster randomised controlled trial, Health4Life (M_age = 15.7 years, SD = 0.6; 47.0% female-identifying). Fourteen percent (n = 571) were categorised as low SES and 86% (n = 3518) as mid-to-high SES, relative to the study sample, with 9% (n = 399) from regional areas. Binary logistic regressions compared differences for each outcome across SES and geographical locations, controlling for gender, psychological distress, intervention status, and school clustering.

Results

Low SES adolescents had a lower prevalence of excessive discretionary food intake (PR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77–0.99), standard drink consumption (PR = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.65–0.93) and binge drinking (PR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.50–0.92) compared to mid-to-high SES adolescents. Regional adolescents had a higher prevalence of standard drink consumption (PR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.00–1.97), binge drinking (PR = 1.77; 95% CI = 1.07–2.93), and tobacco smoking (PR = 2.06; 95% CI = 1.18–3.60) compared to adolescents in major cities. Excessive discretionary food intake was less prevalent among adolescents from disadvantaged backgrounds (PR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.76–0.94) compared to more advantaged adolescents.

Conclusion

Chronic disease risk behaviours among adolescents differ across SES and geographical locations, with regional adolescents fairing considerably worse across alcohol and tobacco use outcomes. Prevention for diet-related behaviours should be improved for more advantaged adolescents, while tailored interventions to SES and geographical location separately may be required for alcohol-, tobacco-, and e-cigarette use.

So What?

Public health policy and interventions targeting chronic disease risk behaviours must prioritise the needs of low SES and regional adolescents to reduce health inequities.

Trial Registration

The Health4Life trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12619000431123)

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

谁报告了更大的慢性病风险行为？澳大利亚青少年社会人口统计学差异的进一步研究：一项横断面分析

最近澳大利亚缺乏关于不同社会人口群体中慢性病风险行为流行率的青少年数据。这项研究调查了饮食摄入的流行程度(含糖饮料（SSBs）；可自由支配的食物;水果;蔬菜)和酒精(标准饮料；在不同社会经济地位（SES）和地理位置的青少年中，烟草和电子烟的使用。方法对2022年来自71所学校的4445名青少年的横断面数据进行分析，作为基于学校的整群随机对照试验Health4Life 36个月随访调查的一部分(Mage = 15.7 years, SD = 0.6；female-identifying 47.0%)。相对于研究样本，14% （n = 571）被归类为低社会经济地位，86% （n = 3518）被归类为中高社会经济地位，9% （n = 399）来自地区。在控制了性别、心理困扰、干预状况和学校聚类等因素后，二元逻辑回归比较了不同社会经济地位和地理位置的每个结果的差异。结果低社会经济地位青少年过度随意食物摄入的患病率较低（PR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77-0.99），标准饮料消费(PR = 0.78；95% CI = 0.65-0.93)和酗酒(PR = 0.68；95% CI = 0.50-0.92)与中高SES青少年相比。区域青少年的标准饮酒量患病率较高(PR = 1.41；95% CI = 1.00-1.97)，酗酒(PR = 1.77；95% CI = 1.07-2.93)，吸烟(PR = 2.06；95% CI = 1.18-3.60)，与大城市的青少年相比。与条件较好的青少年相比，背景较差的青少年的任意食物摄入过多的情况较少（PR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.76-0.94）。结论不同社会经济地位和地理位置的青少年慢性病风险行为存在差异，区域青少年在酒精和烟草使用结果方面的表现明显较差。对于条件较好的青少年，应加强对饮食相关行为的预防，而对于酒精、烟草和电子烟的使用，可能需要分别针对社会经济地位和地理位置进行量身定制的干预。那又怎样?针对慢性病风险行为的公共卫生政策和干预措施必须优先考虑低社会经济地位和区域青少年的需求，以减少卫生不公平现象。Health4Life试验已在澳大利亚新西兰临床试验登记处注册（ACTRN12619000431123）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Health Promotion Journal of Australia PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

10.50%

发文量

115

期刊介绍： The purpose of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia is to facilitate communication between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers involved in health promotion activities. Preference for publication is given to practical examples of policies, theories, strategies and programs which utilise educational, organisational, economic and/or environmental approaches to health promotion. The journal also publishes brief reports discussing programs, professional viewpoints, and guidelines for practice or evaluation methodology. The journal features articles, brief reports, editorials, perspectives, "of interest", viewpoints, book reviews and letters.