The effects of regional characteristics on alcohol-related mortality—a register-based multilevel analysis of 1.1 million men

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.027Get rights and content

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess to what extent selected characteristics of functional regions affect alcohol-related mortality among men in Finland after adjusting for individual-level characteristics. The study was conducted as a multilevel Poisson regression analysis, with individuals (n=1.1 million) as the first level and functional regions of Finland (n=84) as the second level. The analysis covered men aged 25–64. The data are based on the 1990 census records, which were linked to death records in 1991–1996. The outcome measure was alcohol-related mortality, which was defined using information on the underlying and contributory causes of death. The individual-level covariates included age, education, socioeconomic status, marital status and mother tongue. The area-level variables considered were the proportion of manual workers, unemployment level, median household income, Gini coefficient of income, family cohesion, voting turnout, level of urbanisation and proportion of Swedish-speaking inhabitants. A high proportion of manual workers and of unemployed and low social cohesion (family cohesion and voting turnout) were found to produce adverse effects on alcohol-related mortality, and the independent effects of these variables remained after adjustment for all individual-level and area-level characteristics. The protective effect of high level of urbanisation was revealed after adjustment for other individual- and area-level characteristics. Neither mean income nor income inequality were related to alcohol-related mortality. Adjusting for individual-level variables diminished the average relative deviation of alcohol-related mortality among the functional regions by 41%. The inclusion of area-level characteristics in the model resulted in a total diminution of variation of 79%. The area characteristics considered in this study had a notable effect on alcohol-related mortality, although these effects were smaller than those of the individual-level characteristics. Fuller understanding of the mechanisms underlying the effects of area measures of social structure and cohesion on risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related mortality is needed.

Introduction

Interest in investigating area effects on morbidity and mortality has increased considerably in recent years. There is growing consensus in the field of public health that characteristics of communities and areas may be important in understanding health outcomes. The effects of area context on the health of individuals have policy relevance, as it has been suggested that interventions to promote health should also focus on efforts to improve neighbourhoods and communities in socially disadvantaged areas (Robert, 1999; Diez-Roux, 2001). Most studies have concentrated on the neighbourhood level, although some research has been carried out at the US state level and at the metropolitan and county levels.

Most multilevel studies on area characteristics affecting health have focused on the effects of socioeconomic structure or deprivation and average income level of areas. These studies show somewhat conflicting results: some have found area effects after adjusting for individual characteristics (Haan, Kaplan, & Camacho, 1987; Davey Smith, Hart, Watt, Hole, & Hawthorne, 1998; Yen & Kaplan, 1999), while others show only modest independent effects after adjustment for individual confounders (Sloggett & Joshi, 1994; Anderson, Sorlie, Backlund, Johnson, & Kaplan, 1997; Sloggett & Joshi, 1998; Waitzman & Smith, 1998).

There is a large body of literature on the effects of income inequality on health and mortality. Some multilevel studies in this field have found an association between income inequality and health outcomes at the US state level (Kennedy, Kawachi, Glass, & Prothrow-Stith, 1998; Lochner, Pamuk, Makuc, Kennedy, & Kawachi, 2001), at the metropolitan level (Blakely, Lochner, & Kawachi, 2002) and at the county and census-tract levels (Soobader & LeClere, 1999), even after adjusting for individual-level income. However, methodological criticism has been levelled at the income inequality hypothesis. It has been suggested that the relation between income inequality and health outcomes is merely a statistical artefact due to the curvilinear association of individual income and health (Ellison, 2002; Gravelle, Wildman, & Sutton, 2002). Furthermore, some studies have found no independent effect of income inequality. For example Fiscella and Franks (1997) reported no association between income inequality and mortality on the county level in the United States after controlling for individual-level variables in a multilevel study. Moreover, Osler et al. (2002) found no association between parish-level income inequality and all-cause mortality in Danish adults after adjustment for individual income.

Social cohesion and social capital have attracted growing attention in research on community factors affecting health (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000; Kunitz, 2001), although these concepts have not been very clearly defined. However, social capital, defined as the density of membership of associations, levels of interpersonal trust and strengths of mutual aid and reciprocity (Putnam, 1993), has been associated with mortality and self-rated health, at least in the United States (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow-Stith, 1997; Kawachi, Kennedy, & Glass, 1999). Baum (1999) emphasizes the need to distinguish between different types of social capital, for instance that generated by family and kinship compared with that arising from associational life or links that connect different groups within society. In our analysis, we do not explicitly distinguish between social cohesion and social capital, but we aim to take the different dimensions into account by separating family cohesion from societal cohesion.

Even though there is consensus on the importance of community- and area-level characteristics affecting health, the effects of socioeconomic position in the community are generally found to be modest compared to individual-level effects, and especially so after adjusting for confounding individual-level socioeconomic effects (Pickett & Pearl, 2001; Robert, 1999). According to the review by Pickett and Pearl (2001) on the effects of neighbourhood and local area characteristics on health outcomes (mortality, morbidity and health behaviours), most studies that have also adjusted for at least individual level socioeconomic status have found effects of one or more community-level variables, which however diminished or disappeared after adjustment for individual effects. Most of the mortality studies reviewed by Pickett and Pearl focused on all-cause mortality. However, all-cause mortality may be too general and heterogeneous as outcome to show strong independent effects of area characteristics.

We assume that contextual factors may have a stronger effect on alcohol-related mortality than on many other types of mortality, because this outcome is so strongly dependent on people's behaviour. Hence, alcohol-related mortality is a suitable outcome measure for testing the existence and nature of contextual effects. In a previous study on area differences in alcohol-related mortality in Finland (Mäkelä, Ripatti, & Valkonen, 2001), adjusting for the sociodemographic characteristics of individuals living in Finnish provinces reduced the differences between provinces by only 20%. Further analyses of the particular area characteristics that cause the geographical differences in alcohol-related mortality are thus needed.

According to Pickett and Pearl (2001), studies adjusting for more than one individual-level socioeconomic variable have found weaker associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic status and health. This suggests a compositional effect of the population structure in the areas, i.e. the observed differences in mortality or morbidity between areas arise because in some areas there are more residents with characteristics associated with poorer health outcomes (Curtis & Jones, 1998; Duncan, Jones, & Moon, 1998). The results also suggest that individual-level variables should be adequately adjusted for in studies of area effects on health outcomes. More analyses are also needed to investigate the effects of area characteristics other than socioeconomic structure on mortality, and to study the independent effects of various area characteristics when the effects of other area characteristics are simultaneously taken into account. Moreover, both average and spread variables should be included in the analyses (Pickett & Pearl, 2001).

In addition to the fact that alcohol-related mortality offers a better way of testing the effects of area-level characteristics, there are further reasons for selecting alcohol-related mortality as our outcome measure (for an exact definition, see Data and methods section). Alcohol-related deaths make a large contribution to premature mortality (Mäkelä, 1998), and to socioeconomic differences in mortality and their changes, particularly among young and middle-aged men (Mäkelä, Valkonen, & Martelin, 1997; Valkonen et al., 2000; Martikainen, Valkonen, & Martelin, 2001). Additionally, province-level differences in alcohol-related mortality in Finland are large, with the provinces in northern and eastern Finland showing higher mortality rates than those in western parts of the country (Mäkelä et al., 2001). It has also been shown that alcohol-related deaths make a rather large contribution to the province-level differences in all-cause mortality. An effect of alcohol-related deaths on geographical differences in all-cause mortality has also been shown at the neighbourhood level in the Helsinki metropolitan area (Martikainen, Kauppinen, & Valkonen, 2003). Furthermore, the emphasis on preventive measures against alcohol-related damage has moved from the national to the local level. This lends credence to the studies on the factors behind the large area differences in alcohol-related mortality.

Risky consumption of alcohol, in terms of acute intoxication or long-term heavy consumption, is a necessary—but not sufficient—cause of alcohol-related mortality (as it is defined in this study). We assume that the area-level factors used in the analysis affect alcohol-related mortality partly through the risky consumption of alcohol and partly through vulnerability to the effects of risky consumption. If valid area-level measures of risky consumption existed, it would be useful to add them to the analysis in order to separate the ‘risky consumption’ pathway from the ‘vulnerability’ pathway. However, there are no reliable statistics on regional alcohol consumption patterns but only on alcohol sales, which do not tell how alcohol is consumed and do not take into account that there are systematic regional differences in the extent to which alcohol is bought and consumed in the same place. Therefore, we do not attempt to explain geographical differences in alcohol-related mortality in terms of differences in alcohol sales.

The aim of this study is to assess to what extent selected characteristics of Finnish regions affect the level of alcohol-related mortality. We use the functional regions (n=84) as area units. We will first investigate the gross effects of the separate area characteristics, but the focus of the study is to assess the strength of the effects of each of the area characteristics on alcohol-related mortality while adjusting for individual-level and other area-level characteristics. This allows us to distinguish the contextual effects of the areas from the compositional effects of the individual characteristics. Individual-level variables are included in the analysis only to account for their possible confounding effects. We will also estimate to what extent the variation in alcohol-related mortality between the functional regions could be explained in terms of the individual-level and area-level variables considered.

The analysis is restricted to working-aged men (25–64 years during the period covered by the study). In 1991–1993, 80% of all alcohol-related deaths among men occurred in this age group (unpublished table from Mäkelä, 1998). In this paper, we decided to concentrate on men because 86% of all alcohol-related deaths in the period 1991–1993 occurred among men (Mäkelä, 1998). The proportion of alcohol-related deaths of all deaths in 1991–1993 was 28% among men aged 25–64 (unpublished data from Mäkelä, 1998).

Section snippets

Study population

The data in this study are on two levels, that of individuals and that of areas in which the individuals reside. The individual-level data were obtained from Statistics Finland (permission TK-53-8-02). The individual-level data are register data from the 1990 census linked to records from the death register for the years 1991–1996 for all men who were 25–64 years old during the study period. The linkage was carried out by Statistics Finland by means of personal identification codes. These

Results

In these analyses, individual-level variables were treated as confounders that reflect possible compositional differences in the population structures of the study areas. The detailed results for the individual-level variables are not presented, but the patterns are consistent with previous findings (Mäkelä (1998), Mäkelä (1999)). When all other individual- and area-level variables are adjusted for, alcohol-related mortality consistently increased with age, the mortality rate ratio (RR) of the

Discussion

Area effects on mortality have usually been studied in terms of the effects of area-level socioeconomic status or deprivation. Some multilevel studies on mortality, morbidity and health behaviours have found effects of area deprivation that are independent of individual-level variables, while others suggest that area effects are modest or non-existent, especially after controlling for individual-level variables (Pickett & Pearl, 2001). This variability in the findings is not surprising, as

Conclusion

In summary, the observed area differences in alcohol-related mortality were not accounted for by differences in the characteristics of the individuals in the areas. Moreover, the independent contextual effects of the area characteristics were substantial. The area-level variables representing social structure and cohesion in particular are significant in explaining area differences in alcohol-related mortality. Fuller understanding of the mechanisms underlying the effects of area measures of

Acknowledgements

This work is part of the European Science Foundation program on Social Variations in health Expectancy in Europe, in particular the working group on Macrosocial Determinants of Morbidity and Mortality. The study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grants 41498, 70631, 48600). We are grateful to Statistics Finland for granting permission (TK-53-8-02) to use the data.

References (40)

  • G Davey Smith et al.

    Individual social class, area-based deprivation, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and mortalitythe Renfrew and Paisley Study

    Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

    (1998)
  • A Diez-Roux

    Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health

    American Journal of Public Health

    (2001)
  • G Edwards et al.

    Alcohol policy and the public good

    (1994)
  • K Fiscella et al.

    Poverty or income inequality as predictor of mortalitylongitudinal cohort study

    British Medical Journal

    (1997)
  • M Haan et al.

    Poverty and health. Prospective evidence from the Alameda County Study

    American Journal of Epidemiology

    (1987)
  • Kaukonen, O., Metso, L., & Österberg, E. (2000). Päihteiden käytön ja päihdepalvelujen kysynnän alueellinen...
  • I Kawachi et al.

    Social cohesion, social capital, and health

  • I Kawachi et al.

    Social capital and self-rated healthA contextual analysis

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1999)
  • I Kawachi et al.

    Social capital, income inequality, and mortality

    American Journal of Public Health

    (1997)
  • B.P Kennedy et al.

    Income distribution, socioeconomic status, and self-rated health in the United Statesmultilevel analysis

    British Medical Journal

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text