Smoking prevalence and attributable deaths in Thailand: predicting outcomes of different tobacco control interventions.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial positive impacts of Thailand's tobacco control policies on reducing the prevalence of smoking, current trends suggest that further reductions are needed to ensure that WHO's 2025 voluntary global target of a 30% relative reduction in tobacco use is met. In order to confirm this hypothesis, we aim to estimate the effect of tobacco control policies in Thailand on the prevalence of smoking and attributed deaths and assess the possibilities of achieving WHO's 2025 global target. This paper addresses this knowledge gap which will contribute to policy control measures on tobacco control. Results of this study can help guide policy makers in implementing further interventions to reduce the prevalence of smoking in Thailand. METHOD: A Markov chain model was developed to examine the effect of tobacco control policies, such as accessibility restrictions for youths, increased tobacco taxes and promotion of smoking cessation programs, from 2015 to 2025. Outcomes included smoking prevalence and the number of smoking-attributable deaths. Due to the very low prevalence of female smokers in 2014, this study applied the model to estimate the smoking prevalence and attributable mortality among males only. RESULTS: Given that the baseline prevalence of smoking in 2010 was 41.7% in males, the target of a 30% relative reduction requires that the prevalence be reduced to 29.2% by 2025. Under a baseline scenario where smoking initiation and cessation rates among males are attained by 2015, smoking prevalence rates will reduce to 37.8% in 2025. The combined tobacco control policies would further reduce the prevalence to 33.7% in 2025 and 89,600 deaths would be averted. CONCLUSION: Current tobacco control policies will substantially reduce the smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths. The combined interventions can reduce the smoking prevalence by 19% relative to the 2010 level. These projected reductions are insufficient to achieve the committed target of a 30% relative reduction in smoking by 2025. Increased efforts to control tobacco use will be essential for reducing the burden of non-communicable diseases in Thailand.

Area-level socioeconomic deprivation and mortality differentials in Thailand: results from principal component analysis and cluster analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite achievement of universal health coverage in Thailand, socioeconomic inequality in health has been a major policy concern. This study examined mortality patterns across different socioeconomic strata in Thailand. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2010 Population and Housing Census on area-level socioeconomic deprivation against the 2010 mortality from the vital registration database at the super-district level. We used principal components analysis to construct a socioeconomic deprivation index and K-mean cluster analysis to group socioeconomic status and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: Excess mortality rates from all diseases, except colorectal cancer, were observed among super-districts with low socioeconomic status. Spatial clustering was evident in the distribution of socioeconomic status and mortality rates. Cluster analysis revealed that super-districts which were predominantly urban tended to have low all-cause standardize mortality ratio but a high colorectal cancer-specific mortality rate. Deaths due to liver cancer, diabetes, and renal diseases were common in the low socioeconomic super-districts which hosted one third of the total Thai population. CONCLUSION: Socially deprived areas have an excess of overall and cause specific deaths. Populations living in more affluent areas, despite low general mortality, still have many preventable deaths such as colorectal cancer. These findings warrant future epidemiological studies investigating various causes of excessive deaths in non-deprived areas and implementation of policies to reduce the mortality gap between rich and poor areas.

Economic burden from smoking-related diseases in Thailand.

OBJECTIVE: To assess economic burden attributable to smoking in Thailand in 2009. METHODS: A prevalence-based, disease-specific cost of illness approach was used to estimate the direct medical costs, indirect medical costs, productivity loss due to premature deaths and absenteeism caused by smoking-related diseases. Direct healthcare costs were obtained from the inpatient and outpatient charge database at the National Health Security Office and the Central Office for Healthcare Information. Indirect healthcare costs were obtained from the Health and Welfare Survey. The household Socioeconomic Survey provided data on income of the population. Costs were estimated for 7 disease groups, namely, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease (CVD), upper aerodigestive tract cancer, other cancer, other respiratory diseases and other medical conditions. Smoking Attributable Fractions were derived from the 2009 Thai Burden of Disease study. RESULTS: Total economic burden of smoking amounted to 74.88 billion Thai Baht (THB) (95% CI 74.59 to 75.18) (US$2.18, 95% CI US$2.17 to US$2.19 billion). Of this, most of the burden resulted from productivity loss 62.24 billion THB (95% CI 62.05 to 62.44) (US$1.81, 95% CI US$1.81 to US$1.82 billion). Total medical cost was 12.64 billion THB (12.44 to 12.85) (US$0.37, 95% CI US$0.36 to US$0.37 billion). Excluding other medical conditions, the direct healthcare costs were highest for CVD, followed by COPD and other respiratory diseases, respectively. All together, the total cost of smoking accounted for 0.78% (95% CI 0.78% to 0.79%) of the national gross domestic product and about 18.19% (95% CI 18.12% to 18.27%) of total health expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: The total economic loss from smoking-related diseases highlights the significant loss to the society, health sector and the country's economy. Such information is crucial for informing national public health policy, particularly when a conflict arises between the economy and health.