Skip to main content

Household expenditure of smokers and ex-smokers across socioeconomic groups: results from a large nationwide Australian longitudinal survey



Countries with best practice tobacco control measures have experienced significant reductions in smoking prevalence, but socioeconomic inequalities remain. Spending on tobacco products, particularly by low-income groups can negatively affect expenditure on other goods and services. This study aims to compare the household expenditure of adults who smoke tobacco products and those who formerly smoked across socioeconomic groups.


Daily smokers and ex-smokers were compared using the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, over 7 waves. Adults who never smoked were not included. Participants were continuing sample members across waves. Mean number of participants per wave was 2505, 25% were smokers and 75% ex-smokers. The expenditure variables investigated included tobacco products, alcohol, motor vehicle fuel, health practitioners, insurance, education, and meals eaten out. Regression models using the generalized estimating equation technique were employed to compare expenditure data aggregated across the waves by Socioeconomic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintiles of relative socio-economic advantage/disadvantage while accounting for within-participant autocorrelation. Quintiles are ranked by information such as the income, occupation and access to material and social resources of the residents.


Smokers from all quintiles spent significantly less per year on meals out, education and insurance than ex-smokers (p < 0.001). Smokers from quintiles 2–5 spent less on groceries, medicines, and health practitioners (p < 0.01). Smokers from quintiles 1 and 2 (most disadvantaged), spent less on motor vehicle fuel than ex-smokers ($280;95%CI: $126–$434), ($213;95%CI: $82–$344). Smokers from quintiles 2 and 3 spent more on alcohol ($212;95%CI: $86–$339), ($231.8;95%CI: $94–$370) than ex-smokers. Smokers from the least disadvantaged groups spent less on clothing than ex-smokers ($348;95%CI: $476–$221), ($501; 95%CI: $743–$258). Across the whole sample, smokers spent more than ex-smokers on alcohol ($230;95%CI:$95–$365) and less on meals out ($361;95%CI:$216–$379), groceries ($529;95%CI:$277–$781), education ($456;95%CI:$288–$624), medicine ($71;95%CI:$38–$104), health practitioners ($345;95%CI:$245–$444) and insurance ($318;95%CI:$229–$407).


Smoking cessation leads to reallocation of spending across all socioeconomic groups, which could have positive impacts on households and their local communities. Less spending on alcohol by ex-smokers across the whole sample could indicate a joint health improvement associated with smoking cessation.

Peer Review reports


Countries that have adopted best practice tobacco control measures have experienced significant reductions in smoking rates [1]. However, inequalities in smoking prevalence across socioeconomic position (SEP) remain [2,3,4]. In 2019 the percentage of daily smokers in Australia was 34% in the lowest socioeconomic group, compared to 9% in the highest [5]. There are also disparities in the number of cigarettes smoked daily by SEP, with the most disadvantaged group in Australia smoking on average about 40 more cigarettes per week [6]. Spending on tobacco products, particularly by disadvantaged individuals and households, can negatively affect expenditure on other goods and services.

Several international studies report on the likelihood of financial stress and smoking-induced deprivation (spending money on cigarettes instead of on household essentials) among smokers compared with non-smokers [7,8,9]. Financial stress is measured using survey items such as being unable to pay utility bills on time or going without meals. In Australia, the probability of experiencing smoking-induced deprivation is greater for those from low-income groups [7, 10]. Late bill payments, going without meals and having insufficient money for petrol, clothing and family leisure activities are some of the ways smoking displaces other spending [11]. Experiencing financial stress is more prevalent among smokers than ex-smokers or never smokers [12, 13].

Smoking cessation may lead to positive changes in household spending; however, few studies have compared the spending of smokers and ex-smokers. The most current research from Australia is based on data from 2006 showing that ex-smokers from low SEP groups, who had made changes to spending, spent more on food and clothing [14]. Ex-smokers in 2001–2005 had a 25–42% reduction in the odds of financial stress [15]. More recently in the US, when ex-smokers were tracked over a one-year period, the lowest SEP groups had significantly lower spending on alcohol, food at home, transportation and entertainment [16]. Compared to Australia, the US has at least 30% lower excise tax rates on cigarettes as well as less smoke-free restrictions in hospitality venues.

Changes in the discretionary income of adults who quit may be just one factor influencing purchases. Tobacco use has been strongly linked with other health-related behaviours, including higher alcohol consumption and less expenditure on food. Smoking cessation is associated with changed eating patterns and increases in food intake [17]. There are neurobiological mechanisms that make co-administration of nicotine and alcohol intake more pleasurable [18]. In addition, smokers can consume more alcohol due to nicotine being able to directly offset its sedative properties. Smoking also counteracts the cognitive deficits associated with alcohol intoxication in the short term [19]. Alcohol consumption also has the effect of reducing the usual brakes on smoking whereby people try to minimise their consumption. This may therefore result in ex-smokers reducing or avoiding alcohol [20, 21].

To our knowledge, the expenditure patterns of smokers compared to ex-smokers by SEP group in Australia has not been previously investigated using quantitative data. We explored several household expenses such as groceries, utilities, alcohol, meals eaten out and healthcare. Our study aimed to compare the household expenditure of smokers and ex-smokers across socioeconomic groups in Australia using data over an 7-year period. This analysis will provide insights into whether smoking cessation may help to reallocate household expenditure in a way that benefits economic and health outcomes.


Study sample

We used seven waves of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey; a nationally representative longitudinal study based on household samples living in private dwellings [22]. Data collection began in 2001 and the sample has been extended to include new members of the original household as well as sample replenishment with additional households added in wave 11. Data are collected by interviewer questionnaire as well as self-completion questionnaires. We obtained our sample from participants responding in the years 2012 to 2018 (waves 12–18). Included in our sample were adult smokers and ex-smokers and being continuing sample members across waves. Data from a total of 17,605 adults were included in this analysis.


Primary independent variable

We used the subsamples of smokers and ex-smokers. Respondents who indicated they smoked tobacco daily at each wave were categorised as smokers. Those who indicated they no longer smoked were classified as ex-smokers. Participants may have changed category if their smoking status changed.

Dependent variables

We analysed household expenditure variables that were collected in waves 12–18. The dependent variables included yearly expenditure on cigarettes and other tobacco products, groceries, alcohol, transport, meals eaten out, motor vehicle fuel, clothing, utilities such as telephone, electricity and gas, internet, education fees (for themselves or their dependents), medicines, health practitioners, and insurance (home, contents and motor vehicle). Expenditure was captured as a continuous variable. The imputation process was carried out by the researchers conducting the survey [23], the details can be found in Additional file 1. Expenditure was adjusted to 2018 dollars using the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Health price inflators for healthcare related expenditure [24], and the Consumer Price index from the Australian Bureau of Statistics [25].

Socio-demographics and potential confounders

We considered several potential confounding variables which are commonly reported in smoking and financial stress studies. This included age, gender, having children, marital status, and remoteness scale (major city, inner regional, outer regional, remote and very remote). Respondents were categorised according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Socioeconomic Index for Areas (SEIFA), and Index of relative advantage/ disadvantage and Index of Education and Occupation (IEO) [26]. The SEIFA quintiles represent groups of individuals who live in similarly ranked areas, based on a range of information such as the income, qualifications, and occupation skills of the area residents [26]. Socio-economic advantage and disadvantage is defined by the ABS in terms of people’s access to material and social resources, and their ability to participate in society [27]. The Index of Education and Occupation (IEO) reflects the educational and occupational level of communities by level of qualification and skill levels of the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations and the unemployed [28].


Overall mean expenditure and the chosen expenditure categories across waves 12–18 among smokers and ex-smokers were inspected visually using box plots for the presence of extreme and out-of-range values. Summary measures including median and interquartile range (IQR) were used to describe expenditure categories. Regression models using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) technique were employed to aggregate data across the survey waves 12–18 to account for within-participants autocorrelation, to address the longitudinal nature of the study. Separate models for SEIFA and IEO quintiles were employed [29]. A robust sandwich estimator was used for model variance estimation and an unstructured covariance structure was employed to account for within-participant autocorrelation. Effects of age, gender as time-invariant and having children, marital status, and remoteness scale as time-updating (i.e., updating across the waves) variables were initially investigated through GEE models and excluded from the final models due to non-significant p-values. Two-way interactions between smoking status and confounding variables were investigated in additional GEE models. The models with significant interactions were depicted graphically. The SEIFA quintiles of relative socio-economic advantage/disadvantage and IEO were investigated in separate GEE models to avoid autocorrelation. Two tailed p-values ≤0.05 were considered significant for overall across SEIFA /IEO quintiles comparisons, and the Bonferroni approach was used to account for type I error inflation due to multiple comparisons for all within quintiles comparisons (p ≤ 0.01). Stata 16 was used for data analysis [30].


Descriptive Statistics

The percentage of smokers ranged in each wave from 28% (2012) to 23% (2018) and 72% to 77% ex-smokers. The total numbers vary slightly in each wave due to new entrants being added or leaving a continuing sample member household, death or moving overseas (Table 1).

Table 1 Number of participants in each wave 2012–2018

Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding. Categories are reported as described and were combined for modelling.

Table 2 presents the demographics of participants in wave 12. Around half the participants were female for both smokers (51.0%) and ex-smokers (49.4%). Ex-smokers tended to be older and part of a couple without children. A greater percentage of the smokers were lone persons (27.9% versus 20.1%) and single parents (9.1% versus 3.9%). More ex-smokers had a university degree (23.5% versus 9.7%). The median income level was around $10,000 higher in the ex-smokers’ group.

Table 2 Characteristics of the subsample of smokers and ex-smokers at first wave of analysis (wave 12), n-2507

Household expenditure

Across all seven waves expenditure for smokers was significantly higher than ex-smokers for cigarettes and tobacco (+$5045) and alcohol (+$230), and significantly lower in the expenditure categories of eating out (−$361), groceries (−$529), education (−$456) medicines (−$108), health practitioners (−$345) and general insurance (−$318) (p < 0.001) (Table 3). For the categories of utilities, clothing, internet and phone, public transport and motor vehicle fuel, overall mean expenditure was not significantly different amongst smokers and ex-smokers. Additional file 2 details the median expenditure by quintile per annum across waves.

Table 3 Mean expenditure differences of smokers and ex-smokers by socioeconomic position per annum

Within quintile results

For models with overall significantly different expenditure patterns between smokers and ex-smokers, average expenditure across waves is presented in Figs. 1 and 2. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate marginal mean predictions of expenditure from models that included significant two-way interactions of socioeconomic quintile and smoking status. The blue line, representing the ex-smokers, is mostly above the red line, indicating lower mean expenditure by smokers. For cigarettes and tobacco, and alcohol, the blue line is lower than the red line, indicating lower mean expenditure by ex-smokers. Significant interactions are detailed in the following categories.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Smokers and ex-smokers mean expenditure per annum ($A) and 95% CI by Socioeconomic Index for Areas (SEIFA) quintile, averaged across waves.

Notes: line indicates smokers; the blue line indicatesa ex-smokers, the lower SEIFA quintile represents more disadvantage

Fig. 2
figure 2

Smokers and ex-smokers mean expenditure per annum ($A) and 95% CI by Index of Education and Occupation (IOE) quintile, averaged across waves.

Notes: Red line indicates smokers; the blue line indicates ex-smokers, the lower IEO quintile represents lower education/occupation

Motor vehicle fuel

Expenditure on motor vehicle fuel was significantly lower for smokers in quintile 1 and quintile 2 compared to ex-smokers, with mean differences of −$280 and −$213 respectively (p < 0.01). There was a significant interaction between smoking status and age. As each year of age increased, smokers spent an additional $10 (95% CI: $0–$20) on fuel than same age ex-smokers.

Cigarettes and tobacco

The difference in expenditure on cigarettes and tobacco between smokers and ex-smokers in quintiles 1–5 ranged from +$4334 in quintile 1 (most disadvantaged) to +$5949 in quintile 5 (least disadvantaged) (p < 0.01). Quintile 2 had the second highest difference in expenditure on cigarettes and tobacco (+$5328).


In quintiles 2 and 3, mean expenditure on alcohol was significantly higher for smokers than ex-smokers by $212 and $231 respectively (p < 0.01). In all other quintiles the results were not significant.

Meals eaten out

Expenditure on meals eaten out was significantly lower for smokers than ex-smokers in all quintiles with mean differences ranging from −$356 in quintile 1 to −$367 in quintile 5 (p < 0.01).


Apart from quintile 1, expenditure on groceries was lower for smokers than ex-smokers, with mean differences ranging from −$434 in quintile 2 to −$747 in quintile 5 (p < 0.001). There were significant interactions between smoking status and remoteness index and smoking status and marital status: smokers living in outer regional areas, spent $720 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): $18. − $1422) more than ex-smokers living in major cities, and married smokers spent $487 (95% CI: −$969−−$5) less than unmarried ex-smokers.


Mean difference in expenditure on education was significantly lower for smokers than ex-smokers in all quintiles with differences in the range of −$276 to −$653 (p < 0.001). There were significant interactions between smoking status and age, smoking status and gender and smoking status and having children. As each year of age increased, smokers spent an additional $15 (95% CI: $5–$26) on education compared with same age ex-smokers. Female smokers spent $276 less (95% CI:−$548−−$5) on education compared with male ex-smokers. Smokers with children spent $393 (95% CI: −$686−−$100) less on education than ex-smokers without children.


Expenditure on clothing by smokers was significantly lower for quintiles 4 and 5, than ex-smokers with mean differences of −$348 and − $500 respectively per year (p < 0.001).


Apart from quintile 1, expenditure on medicines was significantly lower for smokers than ex-smokers, with mean differences ranging from $61 to $94 per year (p < 0.001).

Health practitioner

Apart from quintile 1, smokers had significantly lower expenditure on health practitioners than ex-smokers, with mean differences ranging from −$244 to −$577 (p < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between smoking status and remoteness index: adults living in outer regional areas who smoke, spent an additional $393 (95% CI: $185–$600) on health practitioners than adults living in major cities who quit smoking.


The mean difference in spending on insurance was significantly lower for smokers than ex-smokers in all quintiles ranging from −$291 to −$348 (p < 0.001). There were significant interactions between smoking status and remoteness index and smoking status and marital status. Smokers living in remote areas spent $804 less (95% CI: −$1508−−$100) than ex-smokers living in major cities. Married smokers spent $163 (95% CI: −$310−−$16) less than unmarried ex-smokers.


This study aimed to compare household expenditure of smokers and ex-smokers, particularly among the lowest SEP groups. We found that in the lowest SEP group (quintile 1), smokers spent on average $4335 per annum on cigarettes and tobacco products and ex-smokers spent more on meals eaten out, education, motor vehicle fuel and insurance than smokers. Ex-smokers in SEIFA quintile 2 had the most differences in spending categories, with more spending in the same categories as quintile 1, along with groceries, medicine and health practitioners and less on alcohol. The apparent expenditure shifts from tobacco to spending in other areas indicate there are societal benefits of smoking cessation, beyond the direct health effects in the form of increased expenditure in the local community, such as to grocery stores and restaurants and cafes. For the Australian economy, spending on other goods and services is beneficial and would increase the income and prosperity for local businesses given that tobacco companies are transnational. Our results indicate that the interaction effects of marital status, having children, remoteness index and gender on cigarettes, alcohol, meals eaten out and medicine expenditure were not significant.

Less expenditure on alcohol by ex-smokers indicates a possible joint health effect improvement: smoking cessation and reduced alcohol intake. Our results highlight previous research that nicotine increases alcohol reinforcement and cravings in smokers and its absence results in a decrease in consumption [31, 32]. Greater alcohol expenditure in smokers may also reflect previous findings that they are able to consume more due to nicotine directly offsetting the cognitive deficits associated with alcohol intoxication [33]. Alcohol consumption is also related to relapses in smoking cessation attempts [20]. Our findings of a reduction in alcohol expenditure support prior research from a longitudinal study that examined recent adults who quit over a 12-month period from the U.S. [16] Rogers et al also found that quitting reduced households expenditure on other items that facilitate or complement smoking cessation such as food, entertainment, and transport [16]. However, our findings indicate an increase in eating out for adults who quit. Rogers et al considered restaurants to be a smoking trigger; households with a smoker who had relapsed tended to have higher spending on food away from home. Differences in our findings may be due to smoke-free restaurants and cafes being more regulated in Australia. Expenditure on food at home was not collected as part of the HILDA survey so the extent to which overall food expenditure has changed is not known. Our results could indicate that adults who quit switched from consuming alcohol to eating out.

For adults who quit, higher health expenditure on health practitioners and medicines was found overall. Smoking cessation often occurs during a costly healthcare episode which prompts them to quit [34]. This has been found by several previous studies, that followed smokers and ex-smokers over several years [34,35,36,37]. Ex-smokers showed an increase in healthcare use and costs that began just before cessation and further increase after cessation, often over a period of 1 year, with rates of healthcare utilisation declining in subsequent years. Within 4-7 years after cessation, adults who quit returned to their baseline levels of healthcare use or lower [34, 35]. Another possible explanation could be that lower socioeconomic quintiles prioritise purchasing tobacco products over medications or that they forego seeing a health practitioner due to the expense. However, for health practitioner expenditure there was a significant interaction between smoking status and remoteness index, indicating that the influence of adults who quit on increased health practitioner expenditure is reduced for those living in outer regional areas. This could be because those living in rural areas generally experience poorer health outcomes due to multiple factors, such as lifestyle and access to healthcare [37].

Several interactions between education expenditure and smoking status were found. Overall, adults who quit had increased spending on education, and this was strengthened by not having children, and being male. As age increased, smokers spent more on education than ex-smokers but these differences in spending were very low. Previous research indicates that time preferences are a key component of the theory of rational addition, whereby present-oriented people are more prone to addiction and ex-smokers were less present-oriented and less impulsive than smokers [38]. Ex-smokers may be less present-oriented and more able to envisage medium- to longer-term consequences than smokers who may be more impulsive [38] and this may diminish with age. A similar explanation could be delayed reward discounting (DRD), a concept from behavioural economics that describes a specific type of impulsive decision-making reflecting how quickly a reward loses its value based on its delay in time [39]. For example, substance dependence manifests behaviourally as an individual’s preference for smaller immediate rewards at the expense of considerable benefits in the future from not using the drug. A review of DRD studies indicates strong evidence of greater DRD in individuals exhibiting addictive behaviour [39]. The lower expenditure on insurance by smokers compared to ex-smokers is consistent with a previous cross-sectional study from Australia that found similar patterns of insurance expenditure to our study between smokers and non-smokers [40]. We found that the influence of smoking on reduced insurance expenditure was strengthened by living in remote areas and being married.

Our study has several strengths. We were able to analyse a large nation-wide representative longitudinal sample of smokers and ex-smokers over a seven-year period by socioeconomic quintiles. The only previous study that has examined these groups’ expenditure longitudinally is from the US using a follow up period of 12 months [16]. Previous studies on expenditure of smokers in Australia by SEP have been based on a national cross-sectional surveys and qualitative interviews that compared them with adults who do not smoke [11, 40]. Our GEE model selection approach based on p-value< 0.05 is justified given that a post-hoc analysis showed that based on an average sample size of 2500 per year with compound symmetry correlation structure (corr = 0.5) across annual measure, the models can detect sufficiently small effects (i.e. an standardised effect size of 0.08, equivalent to 8% of SD) with 80% power. Our study could have been strengthened using only smokers pre- and post-cessation, however this was not possible due to insufficient numbers in the sample. We use an area-level socioeconomic measure of socioeconomic position, which may omit substantial proportions of individual variation in education and income [41]. However, there is evidence that area-based measures capture the complex relationship between various economic and social phenomena that cannot be picked up by individual-based measures [42]. Nonetheless, we have provided results by measure of income and occupation (Table 3) with very similar findings.

Because tobacco and alcohol use are highly prevalent in several other high-income countries, our findings of a reduction in alcohol expenditure associated with cessation are also of relevance outside of Australia. In the UK, for example, alcohol expenditure as a proportion of income is highest amongst the most disadvantaged [43]. Understanding how households reallocate spending when consumption of tobacco and alcohol are reduced may alleviate financial strain amongst disadvantaged groups as well as improve health. While prevalence of smoking remains high among people with mental illness [44, 45], future research could explore whether mental health impacts household expenditure of smokers and ex-smokers especially amongst disadvantaged groups.


Smoking cessation not only results in direct health benefits, but also appears to have societal economic benefits. In SEIFA quintile 2, ex-smokers, had the most significant differences in spending categories. SEIFA quintiles 1 and 2 had higher spending on meals eaten out, education, motor vehicle fuel and insurance compared to smokers daily. The reduction in alcohol spending by ex-smokers overall indicates a joint health benefit that could be used to encourage policymakers, funders, primary healthcare and the alcohol and other drug sectors, to address smoking cessation more actively. Amongst low-SEP households and across the sample, spending by ex-smokers indicates positive impacts on households and increased spending in their local communities on non-tobacco products.

Availability of data and materials

The survey data that support the findings of this study are available in Australian Data Archive Dataverse with the identifier



Australian Bureau of Statistics


Confidence Interval


Delayed reward discounting


Generalized estimating equation


Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia


Index of Education and Occupation


Interquartile range


Socioeconomic Index for Areas


Socioeconomic position


  1. Organization WH. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021: addressing new and emerging products. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  2. ONS. Statistics on smoking England: 2019. England: Information and Technology for Better Health and Care: NHS Digital, the Government Statistical Service; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  3. White S, McCaffrey N, Scollo M. Tobacco dependence treatment in Australia – an untapped opportunity for reducing the smoking burden. Public Health Res Pract. 2020;30:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Malta DC, Flor LS, Machado ÍE, Felisbino-Mendes MS, Brant LCC, Ribeiro ALP, et al. Trends in prevalence and mortality burden attributable to smoking, Brazil and federated units, 1990 and 2017. Population Health Metrics. 2020;18:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Drug use and population groups. Canberra: AIHW; 2020. Available from: [cited 8 Oct 2020].

    Google Scholar 

  6. Greenhalgh E, Scollo M, Pearce M. 9.1 Smoking and social disadvantage. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2020. Available from: [cited 8 Oct 2020].

    Google Scholar 

  7. Siahpush M, Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Fong GT. Tobacco expenditure, smoking-induced deprivation and financial stress: results from the international tobacco control (ITC) four-country survey. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2012;31:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Siahpush M, Spittal M, Singh GK. Smoking cessation and financial stress. Journal of Public Health. 2007;29:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Widome R, Joseph AM, Hammett P, Van Ryn M, Nelson DB, Nyman JA, et al. Associations between smoking behaviors and financial stress among low-income smokers. Prev Med Rep. 2015;2:911–5.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Siahpush M, Borland R, Yong HH. Sociodemographic and psychosocial correlates of smoking-induced deprivation and its effect on quitting: findings from the international tobacco control policy evaluation survey. Tobacco Control. 2007;16:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Guillaumier A, Bonevski B, Paul C. 'Cigarettes are priority': a qualitative study of how Australian socioeconomically disadvantaged smokers respond to rising cigarette prices. Health Education Research. 2015;30:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guillaumier A, Twyman L, Paul C, Siahpush M, Palazzi K, Bonevski B. Financial stress and smoking within a large sample of socially disadvantaged Australians. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2017;14:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Siahpush M, Borland R, Scollo M. Smoking and financial stress. Tobacco Control. 2003;12:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bonevski B, Paul C, Lorraine P, Lecathelinais C. Spending, shopping and saving: ex-Smokers' perceptions about material gains following quitting. Journal of Smoking Cessation. 2010;5:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Siahpush M, Spittal M, Singh GK. Association of smoking cessation with financial stress and material well-being: results from a prospective study of a population-based national survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97:12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers ES, Dave DM, Pozen A, Fahs M, Gallo WT. Tobacco cessation and household spending on non-tobacco goods: results from the US consumer expenditure surveys. Tobacco Control. 2018;27:2.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Harris KK, Zopey M, Friedman TC. Metabolic effects of smoking cessation. Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 2016;12:5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Adams S. Psychopharmacology of tobacco and alcohol comorbidity: a review of current evidence. Current Addiction Reports. 2017;4:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roche DJO, Ray LA, Yardley MM, King AC. Current insights into the mechanisms and development of treatments for heavy drinking cigarette smokers. Current Addiction Reports. 2016;3:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lisha NE, Carmody TP, Humfleet GL, Delucchi KL. Reciprocal effects of alcohol and nicotine in smoking cessation treatment studies. Addictive Behaviors. 2014;39:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brown J, West R, Beard E, Brennan A, Drummond C, Gillespie D, et al. Are recent attempts to quit smoking associated with reduced drinking in England? A cross-sectional population survey. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. The Household, Income and labour dynamics in Australia (HILDA). Survey, restricted release 18 (waves 1-18). ADA Dataverse. 2022.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Summerfield M, Bright S, Hahn M, La N, Macalalad N, Watson N, et al. HILDA user manual – Release 18. Melbourne: Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne; 2019

  24. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2017–18 supplementary tables. Canberra: AIHW; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Consumer Price index Australia TABLE 7. CPI: group, sub-group and expenditure class, weighted average of eight capital cities. Canberra: ABS; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of population and housing: socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia. Canberra: ABS; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Advantage & disadvantage: the concepts. Canberra: ABS; 2018. Available from: [cited 19 Apr 2021].

    Google Scholar 

  28. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). Canberra: ABS; 2018. Available from: [cited 19 Apr 2021].

    Google Scholar 

  29. Christopher JWZ. Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: a review with applications. Am J Polit Sci. 2001;45:2.

    Google Scholar 

  30. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: Release 16. College Station: StataCorp LLC; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  31. McKee SA, Weinberger AH. How can we use our knowledge of alcohol-tobacco interactions to reduce alcohol use? Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2013;9:649.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Funk D, Marinelli PW, Lê AD. Biological processes underlying co-use of alcohol and nicotine: neuronal mechanisms, cross-tolerance, and genetic factors. Alcohol Research & Health. 2006;29:3.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Drobes DJ. Concurrent alcohol and tobacco dependence: mechanisms and treatment. Alcohol Research & Health. 2002;26:2.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wagner EH, Curry SJ, Grothaus L, Saunders KW, McBride CM. The impact of smoking and quitting on health care use. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1995;155:16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fishman PA, Thompson EE, Merikle E, Curry SJ. Changes in health care costs before and after smoking cessation. Nicotine & Tobacco Research. 2006;8:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fishman PA, Khan ZM, Thompson EE, Curry SJ. Health care costs among smokers, former smokers, and never smokers in an HMO. Health Services Research. 2003;38:2.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kahende JW, Adhikari B, Maurice E, Rock V, Malarcher A. Disparities in health care utilization by smoking status – NHANES 1999-2004. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2009;6:3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Peretti-Watel P, L’Haridon O, Seror V. Time preferences, socioeconomic status and smokers’ behaviour, attitudes and risk awareness. European Journal of Public Health. 2013;23:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. MacKillop J, Amlung MT, Few LR, Ray LA, Sweet LH, Munafò MR. Delayed reward discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011;216:3.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Siahpush M, Borland R, Scollo M. Is household smoking status associated with expenditure on food at restaurants, alcohol, gambling and insurance? Results from the 1998–99 household expenditure survey, Australia. Tobacco Control. 2004;13:4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Geronimus AT, Bound J. Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1998;148:5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sampson R. Neighborhood-level context and health: lessons from sociology. In: Kawachi I, Berkman L, editors. Neighborhoods and health. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003. p. 132–46.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. Nyakutsikwa B, Britton J, Langley T. The effect of tobacco and alcohol consumption on poverty in the United Kingdom. Addiction. 2020;116:150-8.

  44. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2019. Drug statistics series no. 32. Cat. no. PHE 270. Canberra: AIHW; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Results from the 2016 National Survey on drug use and health: detailed tables. Rockville: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


This research was funded by the Cancer Council Victoria.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



S.W and A.L conceptualized the paper. M.M designed the analysis. M.M and A.L performed the analyses. A.L curated the data; A.L. wrote the main manuscript and prepared the tables. N.M, S.W, M.S. and M.M. reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita Lal.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This paper uses unit record data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne are responsible for design and management of the survey and ethics approval was obtained from the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, University of Melbourne to conduct the HILDA Survey. All experimental protocols were approved by Office of Research Ethics and Integrity, University of Melbourne. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects and/or their legal guardian(s). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lal, A., Mohebi, M., White, S. et al. Household expenditure of smokers and ex-smokers across socioeconomic groups: results from a large nationwide Australian longitudinal survey. BMC Public Health 22, 1706 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Smokers
  • Quitters
  • Smoking cessation
  • Household expenditure