Study population
We used baseline data from the healthy life in an urban setting (HELIUS) study, an on-going multi-ethnic cohort study conducted in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. The study protocol has been described elsewhere (Stronks et al. 2013). Briefly, the HELIUS study randomly sampled participants aged 18–70 years stratified by ethnicity, through the municipality registry of Amsterdam, which includes information on the country of birth of the participants and their parents. Subjects were sent an invitation letter (and a reminder after 2 weeks) by mail. We were able to contact 55% of those invited (55% among Dutch, 62% among Surinamese, 46% among Turks, 48% among Moroccans, and 57% among Ghanaians), either by response card or after a home visit by an ethnically matched interviewer (speaking both Dutch and the native language). Of those contacted, about 50% agreed to participate (participation rate; 60% among Dutch, 51% among Surinamese, 41% among Turks, 43% among Moroccans, and 61% among Ghanaians). Therefore, the overall response rate was 28% with some variations across ethnic groups (33% among Dutch, 31% among Surinamese, 22% among Turks, 21% among Moroccans, and 35% among Ghanaians). After a positive response, participants received a confirmation letter of the appointment for the physical examination, including a digital or paper version of the questionnaire (depending on the preference of the subject). The questionnaire was additionally translated into English for Ghanaian participants and into Turkish for Turkish participants. Participants who were unable to complete the questionnaire themselves were offered assistance from a trained ethnically matched interviewer speaking the preferred language. Non-response analyses showed no differences between participants and non-participants in socio-economic characteristics (Snijder et al. submitted). The HELIUS study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam.
Baseline data were collected from January 2011 to December 2015. From the total sample of participants who filled in the questionnaire (N = 23,942), we excluded participants of Javanese Surinamese (N = 250) or unknown Surinamese origin (N = 286) because of the small sample sizes. We also excluded participants with an unknown or other ethnic origin (N = 50). Furthermore, participants with missing data on PED were excluded (N = 230). This resulted in a sample of 23,126 participants: 4626 Dutch, 3343 South-Asian Surinamese, 4414 African Surinamese, 2441 Ghanaian, 4012 Turkish, and 4290 Moroccan. It should be noted that participants with missing data on other covariates and the outcome measures were excluded in the corresponding analysis only.
Variables
Ethnicity
Participant’s ethnicity was defined according to the country of birth of the participant as well as that of the parents, which is currently the most widely accepted and most valid assessment of ethnicity in The Netherlands (Stronks et al. 2013). Participants were considered of Dutch origin if the participant and both parents were born in The Netherlands. Participants were considered of non-Dutch ethnic origin if either they themselves were born outside The Netherlands and at least one of their parents (first-generation), or they themselves were born in The Netherlands, but at least one of their parents was born outside The Netherlands (second-generation). Participants of Surinamese origin were further subdivided (through self-reported ethnicity) into subgroups: African, South-Asian, Javanese, or other/unknown Surinamese origin.
Perceived ethnic discrimination
PED was conceptualized as the experiences of interpersonal discrimination based on ethnic background in daily life. We measured PED using the everyday discrimination scale (EDS) (Forman et al. 1997). EDS measures the frequency of discriminatory experiences in daily life and is based on the qualitative work done among African American women in the US and African Surinamese women in The Netherlands (Essed 1991). EDS uses nine items (e.g., ‘people treat you with less respect’; ‘people treat you less kindly’) with response scale varying from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). We modified the EDS, so that participants were specifically asked about experiences of discrimination based on their ethnic background. Mean scores of the nine items were calculated. PED was considered missing if more than one item was missing. If only one item was missing, we used the mean score of the other items to substitute the missing item.
Smoking
Three measures were used to distinguish between different smoking behaviours. Current smoking was assessed as smoking one or more cigarettes currently on daily basis (y/n). Heavy smoking was defined as smoking ≥10 cigarettes daily (y/n). Often, studies use a cutoff of ≥20 cigarettes for heavy smoking (Neumann et al. 2013), which may represent nicotine dependence. To clearly distinguish between the smoking behaviours and since we regarded heavy smoking as intermediary measure between current smoking and nicotine dependence, we decided to use the cutoff ≥10. Nicotine dependence was determined by the Fagerström scale (Heatherton et al. 1991) consisting of six questions (e.g., ‘do you find it hard not to smoke in places where it is not allowed’). The sum score varied from 0 to 10, with a cutoff of ≥4 considered nicotine dependence (y/n). If one of the items was missing, the Fagerström sum score was calculated with a score of 0 for the missing item. If more than one item was missing, the Fagerström sum score was coded as missing. For non- or ex-smokers, the sum score is 0.
Alcohol consumption
For alcohol consumption, we also used three measures. Current drinking was determined by asking whether one has used alcohol in the preceding 12 months (y/n). Excessive drinking was determined by asking how often one drinks alcoholic beverages in combination with how many glasses one drinks on a typical day of drinking. Drinking of alcoholic beverages ‘more than four times a week’ combined with ‘at least 3–4 glasses per day’ was considered excessive daily drinking (y/n). The cutoffs for excessive drinking were based on The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study-2 (Graaf et al. 2010). This measure does not include binge drinking behaviours as studies have indicated that social factors (e.g., drinking peers), rather than psychosocial stressors, are main determinants of binge drinking (Courtney and Polich 2009). Alcohol dependence was determined by the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) (Babor et al. 2001), which consisting of ten questions (e.g., ‘how often during the last year have you failed to do what was normally expected from you because of drinking’). The sum score varied from 0 to 40, with a cutoff of ≥8 for determining alcohol dependence (Babor et al. 2001). If only one item was missing, the mean score of the other nine items was used to substitute the missing item. If more than one item was missing, the AUDIT was not calculated and considered missing.
Covariates
Other covariates included age, sex, educational level, employment status, marital status, and other psychosocial stressors. Educational level was categorized into: no education or elementary education; lower vocational or lower secondary education; intermediate vocational and intermediate/higher secondary education; and higher vocational education or university. Employment status was categorized into three categories: not in the labour force (e.g., incapacitated for work and retirement), unemployed, and employed. Other psychosocial stressors were determined with two items: any negative life events (e.g., ‘you were seriously ill or injured’) in the last 12 months (y/n) (Rosengren et al. 2004) and feeling distressed at home (never, some periods, several periods, and constantly) (Rosengren et al. 2004).
Statistical analysis
We calculated the crude prevalence of the different smoking and alcohol measures. Since the prevalence of heavy smoking and nicotine dependence as well as excessive drinking and alcohol dependence was low in the total sample, we presented the prevalence within the sample of current smokers or drinkers, respectively. To assess ethnic differences in smoking and alcohol consumption, we calculated the age- and sex-adjusted odds ratios for smoking and alcohol consumption using logistic regression.
We assessed the association of PED with smoking and alcohol consumption using logistic regression. Participants of Dutch origin were excluded from the regression analyses, as their PED mean score was close to base value of 1 (i.e., basically no discrimination) with small variation. In the regression analyses, we used two models. In Model 1, we adjusted for ethnicity (in total sample only), age, and sex. In Model 2, we additionally adjusted for marital status, employment status, educational level, and other psychosocial stressors (negative life events and feeling distressed at home). The regression analyses were further presented by ethnicity, as the p value for interaction (PED × Ethnicity) was statistically significant for some outcome measures (i.e., p value < 0.05) (see Tables 3, 4). All analyses were performed using SPSS version 23.