Smoking restrictions in the home and car among rural Native American and white families with young children

BACKGROUND: This paper examines the prevalence of household and car smoking restrictions, factors associated with these restrictions, and children's exposure to secondhand smoke in homes with varying levels of household smoking restrictions in rural Native American and White families. METHODS: In-person interviews were conducted with 380 rural, low-income Native American and White parents or guardians who were the primary caregivers of children aged 1-6 in northeastern Oklahoma. RESULTS: Prevalence of complete smoking bans was 49.1% in Native American homes and 42.7% in White homes. Car smoking bans were less common, with 34.9% of Native American and 39.6% of White caregivers reporting complete bans. Among nonsmoking households, the proportion of friends who smoked was associated with both car and home smoking bans. Race and education of the caregivers were also associated with car smoking bans in homes with no adult smokers. Among smokers, cigarettes smoked per day, quit attempts within the past year, and the strong belief that secondhand smoke harmed children and babies were related to household smoking bans, whereas cigarettes smoked per day and the proportion of friends who smoked were related to car smoking bans. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the relatively low prevalence of smoking bans in our population, factors associated with household and car smoking bans were similar to those found in the general population.     

Smoking Bans in the Home and Car: Do Those Who Really Need Them Have Them?

Background. This paper addresses the question of whether individuals who are most in need of household and car smoking bans, such as individuals with children living at home or who have many friends who smoke, are the ones who have them.Method. A representative sample of 6985 California adults ages 18 and older participated in telephone interviews.Results. Overall, 76% of adults report having home smoking bans and 66% have car smoking bans. Being a smoker or African American, not having children in the home, having more friends who smoke, and lower household income were associated with lower prevalence of both home and car smoking bans (P < 0.01). In multivariate analyses, nonsmokers were 7.9 (95% CI = 3.56, 17.31) times more likely to have a home smoking ban when none of their friends were smokers compared to when most of their friends were smokers. Among smokers, there was an interaction between having children at home and the proportion of friends who smoke. Only 27 to 55% of smokers had home smoking bans unless most of their friends were smokers, then the odds of having a ban were 6.1 (95% CI = 2.76, 13.68) times higher for smokers with children (67% with home bans) than for smokers without children at home (25% with home bans).Conclusions. Efforts to increase home and car smoking bans for nonsmokers who have friends who smoke and smokers with children living at home are needed.     

The Role of Ethnicity and Nativity in the Correspondence between Subjective and Objective Measures of In-Home Smoking

Studies are needed to understand the association between self-reported home smoking bans and objective measures of in-home smoking according to smokers’ ethnicity/nativity. Data came from a trial that used air particle monitors to reduce children’s secondhand smoke exposure in smokers’ households (N?=?251). Linear regressions modeled (a) full home smoking bans by ethnicity/nativity, and (b) objectively measured in-home smoking events, predicted by main and interaction effects of self-reported home smoking bans and ethnicity/nativity. Among smokers reporting?<?a full ban, US-born and Foreign-born Latinos had fewer in-home smoking events than US-born Whites (p?<?0.001). Participants who reported a full smoking ban had a similar frequency of smoking events regardless of ethnicity/nativity. Results indicate that self-reported home smoking bans can be used as a proxy for in-home smoking. Establishing smoking bans in the households of US-born White smokers has the largest impact on potential exposure compared to other ethnicity/nativity groups.

     

A qualitative study of how families decide to adopt household smoking restrictions

Household smoking bans reduce exposure to secondhand smoke in adult nonsmokers and children. To explore the process families go through in adopting voluntary household smoking restrictions, qualitative interviews were conducted with rural African American and White adults in 102 households. The study investigated how families decide to restrict smoking in the home, who has significant influence in the decision-making process, the kinds of disagreements families have about household smoking restrictions, and reasons some families never consider household smoking policies. These findings have implications for designing intervention strategies and messages to promote household smoking bans and help family members negotiate smoke-free homes.     

Household smoking bans: which households have them and do they work?

BACKGROUND: This study characterized Oregon households according to type and degree of restrictions on smoking and explored whether smoking restrictions are associated with decreased environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure. METHODS: A population-based, random-digit-dialed cross-sectional telephone survey of 6,199 adult Oregonians was performed in 1997 to provide baseline data on tobacco use in Oregon. RESULTS: Seventy percent of Oregon households were composed of nonsmokers only, and 85% of those had a full ban on smoking inside the home. Of the households containing one or more smokers, 38% had a full household ban on smoking. Among respondents with a full ban in place, 99% of nonsmoker-only households reported that no one smoked in the home in the previous month, compared with 91% of households with at least one smoker. In both nonsmoker-only households and those with at least one smoker, full bans were strongly associated with awareness of the harm of ETS (OR = 12.8, 95% CI 7.3-22.3, and OR = 6.6, 95% CI 3.6-12.3, respectively). The presence of children in the household was also closely associated with full bans in the two types of households (OR = 4.6, 95% CI 2.8-7.6, and OR = 3.0, 95% CI 2.1-4.4, respectively). Nevertheless, 50% of households with children and a smoker present did not have a full ban in place. CONCLUSIONS: While the prevalence of household smoking restrictions is high in Oregon, there remains room for improvement, since 50% of households with a smoker and a child present do not have a full ban on indoor smoking. Public health messages that focus on household smoking restrictions may help protect nonsmokers from exposure to ETS.     

The Effect of Household Smoking Bans on Household Smoking

Objectives. Because household smoking levels and adoption of domestic smoking rules may be endogenously related, we estimated a nonrecursive regression model to determine the simultaneous relationship between home smoking restrictions and household smoking.Methods. We used data from a May–June 2012 survey of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, households with smokers (n = 456) to determine the simultaneous association between smoking levels in the home and the presence of home restrictions on smoking.Results. We found that home smoking rules predicted smoking in the home but smoking in the home had no effect on home smoking restrictions.Conclusions. Absent in-home randomized experiments, a quasi-experimental causal inference suggesting that home smoking rules result in lower home smoking levels may be plausible.Secondhand smoke (also known as “passive smoking” or “environmental tobacco smoke”) is a health hazard for children and adults.1–5 Institutional, city, or national smoking restrictions reduce smoking prevalence and the average consumption of smokers while naturally limiting exposure to secondhand smoke.6–11 At the household level, the research focus has been on the efficacy of household bans on indoor smoking to reduce nonsmokers’ and children’s exposure.12–18 Many studies have found that smokers in households with smoking bans or restrictive smoking rules smoke fewer cigarettes than smokers in households with no bans or rules.19–23 This relationship appears to suggest that household smoking restrictions are effective in reducing household smoking. But do household bans really reduce household smoking? Unfortunately, this situation is not the same as when smoking bans are implemented in bars,24,25 hospitals,26 prisons,27 schools,28 or countries.29,30 In all of these examples, the bans are introduced independently of the prevalent smoking levels of the institution, city, or country because passive smoking exposure is seen as an important health hazard that requires an administrative or legislative response.In households, this analogy does not necessarily hold. Household smoking could be negatively related to household smoking bans because smokers who smoke fewer cigarettes or households with little smoking may implement a household smoking ban whereas heavier smokers or households with multiple smokers could not do so.23,31 In this situation, household smoking bans are endogenous32 relative to household smoking, which implies that household smoking levels cause the smoking ban, not the reverse. To determine which explanation is correct, an experiment that implemented a household ban randomly in regard to household smoking levels would be appropriate.14,33,34 Under experimental conditions, the ban would be independent of household smoking levels and the effect of implementing a household smoking ban on smoking could be unambiguously estimated.     

Correlates of home smoking bans among Mexican-Americans

PURPOSE: This study examines the individual and environmental correlates of home smoking bans among a population-based sample of Mexican-Americans. Design. A telephone survey on tobacco use and home policies was conducted using stratified, random sampling of listed phone numbers. SETTING: Surveys were completed by telephone in San Diego, California. SUBJECTS: The sample consisted of San Diego adult residents of Mexican descent (N=1103). MEASURES: The interview included questions on home rules regarding smoking in the household and a number of potential correlates, based on the Behavioral Ecological Model (BEM). This model emphasizes the influence of family, social, and cultural factors on health behaviors. RESULTS: Overall, 90.6% of all respondents reported a ban on smoking in the home. Multivariate analyses indicated that home bans on smoking are more likely among individuals that do not smoke, live with children, are more acculturated to U.S. society, report greater aversion to ETS, and/or report more social pressure against indoor smoking. In contrast, smoking bans are less likely among Mexican Americans who live with smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Individual and environmental factors play a protective role by increasing the likelihood of smoking bans in the home of Mexican-descent individuals. These factors should be considered for the design of interventions to sustain and promote the adoption of smoking bans in the home among this and other populations.     

Prevalence and Indicators of Household Smoking Bans Among American Indians

More than 58 million nonsmokers in the U.S. encounter secondhand smoke that leads to tobacco-related diseases and deaths every year, making voluntary household smoking bans an important public health goal. American Indians/Alaska Natives are rarely included in research related to household smoking bans. Further, most studies dichotomize household smoking bans into complete bans versus partial/no bans, rendering it impossible to determine if partial and no bans are associated with different or similar risk factors. Using the 2014 Cherokee Nation American Indian Adult Tobacco Survey, our study sought to identify prevalence of household smoking bans, their extent, and their correlates in an American Indian population. This cross-sectional analysis used multinomial logistic regression to determine correlates of complete, partial, and no household smoking bans. Results indicated that approximately 84% of Cherokee households have a complete ban. Younger age, female gender, higher education, higher household income, respondent’s nonsmoking status, good health, better awareness of harms related to secondhand smoke, visits with a healthcare provider within the past year, and children in the home were positively and significantly associated with complete household smoking bans. Additionally, there were notable differences between correlates related to partial bans and no bans. These results provide insight for the development of more appropriate interventions for American Indian households that do not have a complete household smoking ban.     

Using radon risk to motivate smoking reduction II: randomized evaluation of brief telephone counseling and a targeted video

Radon and cigarette smoking have synergistic effects on lung cancer risk. Electric utility company bill stuffers offered free radon test kits to households with at least one smoker. Participating households (n = 1364) were randomized within a 2 x 2 design to evaluate the main effects of brief telephone counseling and a targeted video on smoking cessation and the establishment of new household smoking bans. Phone counseling was associated with cessation at 3-month follow-up but neither intervention led to 12-month or sustained cessation. While neither intervention had a significant effect on new bans, there were trends in the predicted direction and the combination of the two significantly increased new bans compared with no intervention. The presence of children in the household was associated with new bans. While few households had high levels of radon, such levels were associated with radon mitigation behaviors. Together with a previous study, these results suggest radon risk is a useful and inexpensive way to engage smoking households in risk reduction behaviors, especially the institution of household smoking bans.     

Factors associated with smoke-free homes in NSW: results from the 1998 NSW Health Survey

Objective : To examine the socio‐demographic characteristics associated with smoke‐free homes (SFHs) in NSW and specify high‐risk groups with a low prevalence of household smoking restrictions. Methods : Data were drawn from the 1998 NSW Health Survey, a computer‐assisted telephone interview survey of 17,494 randomly selected respondents aged 16 years across NSW (response rate =70%). Logistic regression analyses, stratified by smoking status, were used. Results : Overall, 72% of adults reported having a SFH; 87% of never‐smokers, 81% of ex‐and 35% of current smokers. The highest percentages of SFHs were reported in households with young children (78%) and with older children (72%) or with adults only (72%). For smokers, SFHs were independently associated with the presence of young children (OR=3.8, 95% Cl 3.1–4.7) compared with those who lived alone, but the odds of living in a SFH were only slightly increased for smokers living with older children (aged 6–15) and for those living with adults only (OR=1.9, OR=1.8 respectively). Speaking a language other than English at home, having more than 10 years' education, and being <35 years old were independently and positively associated with SFH. Being employed in smoke‐free workplaces increased the likelihood of SFHs for both current and past smokers (OR=1.6, OR=1.2 respectively). Conclusion : Most NSW homes have restrictions on smoking inside, but more than half the households with children and at least one smoker adult are not smoke free. Implications : Interventions to shape parents' smoking behaviour around older children are warranted. Strategies need to address never‐smokers in communities with high prevalence of smoking and adults with lower levels of education. A continued commitment to workplace smoking bans is important as they may affect household smoking restrictions.     

Household smoking bans and adolescent antismoking attitudes and smoking initiation: findings from a longitudinal study of a Massachusetts youth cohort

Objectives. We sought to determine whether adolescents living in households in which smoking was banned were more likely to develop antismoking attitudes and less likely to progress to smoking compared with those living in households in which smoking was not banned.Methods. We completed a longitudinal 4-year, 3-wave study of a representative sample of 3834 Massachusetts youths aged 12 to 17 years at baseline; 2791 (72.8%) were reinterviewed after 2 years, and 2217 (57.8%) were reinterviewed after 4 years. We used a 3-level hierarchical linear model to analyze the effect of a household ban on antismoking attitudes and smoking behaviors.Results. The absence of a household smoking ban increased the odds that youths perceived a high prevalence of adult smoking, among both youths living with a smoker (odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15, 2.13) and those living with nonsmokers (OR = 1.75; 95% CI = 1.29, 2.37). Among youths who lived with nonsmokers, those with no home ban were more likely to transition from nonsmoking to early experimentation (OR = 1.89; 95% CI = 1.30, 2.74) than were those with a ban.Conclusions. Home smoking bans may promote antismoking attitudes among youths and reduce progression to smoking experimentation among youths who live with nonsmokers.The proliferation of US smoke-free workplace policies and laws over the past decade has been accompanied by increased attention to private household smoking restrictions. The number of US households with comprehensive rules that make homes smoke free in all areas at all times has increased substantially.¹ The proportion of US households with smoke-free home rules increased from 43% in 1992 to 1993 to 72% in 2003.² Even smokers appear to be increasingly adopting such rules, particularly in homes in which they live with a nonsmoking adult.Although smoke-free home bans are typically implemented to reduce or eliminate environmental tobacco smoke exposure in the household, these bans may have the additional benefit of reducing the initiation of smoking among youths by changing norms about the prevalence and social acceptability of smoking. Very little is known about the specific effect of a household smoking ban on youth smoking behavior or on smoking-related attitudes and norms that may mediate an effect on smoking behavior. In particular, few studies have addressed the independent effect of bans on youths who live with smokers—those who are at the greatest risk for becoming smokers themselves.Recent studies showed that strong smoking regulations in local restaurants and bars were associated with more negative attitudes among youths toward the social acceptability of smoking in restaurants and bars.^3–6 Establishing household smoking bans conveys to youths living within these smoke-free home environments the message that smoking is unacceptable. Some supportive evidence, derived from cross-sectional data, indicates that a household smoking ban is associated with antismoking attitudes and norms. A recent cross-sectional study found that a household ban was associated with a lower perceived prevalence of adult smoking and more-negative attitudes about the social acceptability of smoking, 2 factors that affect the likelihood of smoking initiation.⁷Several cross-sectional studies have reported that a smoking ban in the household was associated with a lower likelihood of being in an earlier stage of smoking and a lower current smoking prevalence among adolescents.^8–11 Conversely, other studies found no statistically significant association between a household smoking ban and reduced adolescent smoking.^12–14 Several factors may account for these conflicting results, including varying sample sizes, age groups, and smoking measures used in these cross-sectional studies.A critical question is whether antismoking socialization occurs when parents themselves smoke. One study found that a household smoking ban was related to lower levels of smoking onset for children with nonsmoking parents but not for children with 1 or more parent who smoked.¹⁵ Another study reported that a household smoking ban was not associated with trying smoking among high school students who had 1 or more parents who were current or former smokers.¹⁶ Only 1 study reported an association between a household smoking ban and a reduced likelihood of smoking among 12th graders whose parents were smokers but not among those whose parents were nonsmokers.¹⁷ In summary, more evidence supports an association between home smoking bans and lower levels of smoking behaviors among youths who live with nonsmokers.Current research on household smoking bans has significant limitations. First, these studies rely on cross-sectional data that limit the ability to indicate causality in the relation between home smoking bans and trajectories of attitudes and smoking. Second, most studies have focused on individual-level predictors of attitudes and smoking behaviors, despite evidence that part of the explanation lies within the community context.¹⁸ Third, few studies have investigated the unique effects of a household smoking ban among adolescents living in home environments with parental smokers compared with those living with nonsmokers.In this study, our goal was to improve existing research by (1) using longitudinal data that followed up a cohort of youths and young adults who lived in parental homes over a 4-year period, with a total of 3 repeated observations for each participant; (2) using a multilevel model that simultaneously examined the effects of individual-level and town-level factors; and (3) investigating separately the effects of a household ban on youths who live with at least 1 smoker and youths who live with nonsmokers.     

Household smoking behaviours and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke among infants: are current strategies effectively protecting our young?

Objective: To determine the prevalence of infant exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) among infants attending child health clinics in regional NSW; the association between such exposure and household smoking behaviours; and the factors associated with smoking restrictions in households with infants. Methods: Parents completed a computer‐based questionnaire and infant urine samples were collected. Information was obtained regarding the smoking behaviours of household members and samples were analysed for cotinine. Results: Twenty seven per cent of infants had detectable levels of cotinine. Infant ETS exposure was significantly associated with the smoking status of household members, absence of complete smoking bans in smoking households and having more than one smoker in the home. Smoking households were significantly less likely to have a complete smoking ban in place. Conclusions: This study suggests that a significant proportion of the population group most vulnerable to ETS were exposed. Implications: Future efforts to reduce children's exposure to ETS need to target cessation by smoking parents, and smoking bans in households of infants where parents are smokers if desired reductions in childhood ETS‐related illness are to be realised.     

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smoke‐free homes, 2002 to 2008

Objective : To describe the social patterning of and trends in the prevalence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander smoke‐free homes, and the association between these smoke‐free homes and smoking initiation, intensity and cessation. Methods : Analyses of responses to questions about whether any householders usually smoke inside in the 2004 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Survey, the 2008 National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, and in the comparable National Health Surveys in 2004 and 2007. Results : The proportion of Indigenous children living with at least one daily smoker who smokes inside declined significantly from 28.4% in 2004 to 20.8% in 2008, with significant improvements only detected among the most disadvantaged categories of Indigenous children. The proportion of Indigenous daily smokers who lived in multi‐person households where no daily smoker householder usually smoked inside increased significantly from 45.0% in 2004 to 56.3% in 2008. The absolute size of these changes was greater among Indigenous children and smokers than among all Australians. More disadvantaged Indigenous children were more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke at home, and more disadvantaged Indigenous smokers were more likely to live in households where smokers usually smoked inside. Indigenous smokers in smoke‐free homes smoke significantly less cigarettes. Conclusions and Implications : The increases in Indigenous smoke‐free homes are encouraging, especially as they are from the period before recent increased attention to Indigenous tobacco control, which should accelerate these trends and their resultant health benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families.     

Household smoking bans and adolescents' perceived prevalence of smoking and social acceptability of smoking

OBJECTIVES: Household smoking bans might decrease the visibility of cigarette smoking and communicate nonsmoking social norms and parental attitudes to youths, which may serve as mediators to reduce smoking initiation. Whether they have these effects even if parents smoke or do not otherwise communicate strong disapproval of smoking to their children is not clear. We tested these hypotheses in multi-level analyses. METHODS: A telephone survey of a random sample of 3831 Massachusetts adolescents (12-17 years) assessed respondents' perceptions of smoking prevalence and attitudes about the social acceptability of smoking in their community. The association of these outcomes with the presence of a smoking ban in the youths' home was tested in multivariate analyses that adjusted for town-level clustering and individual and environmental characteristics. RESULTS: A household smoking ban was reported by 71% of all youths and 49% of youths who lived with smokers. In multivariate models, youths who had a household smoking ban were more likely to perceive a lower adult smoking prevalence (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.7-2.5; P < 0.001), greater adult disapproval of adult smoking (OR 2.0; 1.5-2.6; P < 0.001) and of teen smoking (OR 1.5; 95% CI 1.2-1.9; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among adolescents, a household smoking ban was associated with a lower perceived prevalence of adult smoking in their communities and more negative attitudes about the social acceptability of smoking, two factors that affect the likelihood of smoking initiation. Household smoking bans had these effects even in the presence of two parental factors known to encourage adolescent smoking initiation (parental smoking and lack of perceived parental disapproval of youth tobacco use). This provides an additional rationale for promoting household smoking bans to parents.     

Socioeconomic differences in exposure to tobacco smoke pollution (TSP) in Bangladeshi households with children: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Bangladesh Survey

This study assessed the pattern of exposure to tobacco smoke pollution (TSP; also known as, secondhand smoke) in Bangladeshi households with children and examined the variations in household smoking restrictions and perception of risk for children's exposure to TSP by socioeconomic status. We interviewed 1,947 respondents from Bangladeshi households with children from the first wave (2009) of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Bangladesh Survey. 43.5% of the respondents had complete smoking restrictions at home and 39.7% were very or extremely concerned about TSP risk to children's health. Participants with lower level of education were significantly less likely to be concerned about the risk of TSP exposure to children's health and less likely to adopt complete smoking restrictions at home. Logistic regression revealed that the predictors of concern for TSP exposure risk were educational attainment of 1 to 8 years (OR = 1.94) or 9 years or more (OR = 4.07) and being a smoker (OR = 0.24). The predictors of having complete household smoking restrictions were: urban residence (OR = 1.64), attaining education of 9 years or more (OR = 1.94), being a smoker (OR = 0.40) and being concerned about TSP exposure risk to children (OR = 3.25). The findings show that a high proportion of adults with children at home smoke tobacco at home and their perceptions of risk about TSP exposure to children's health were low. These behaviours were more prevalent among rural smokers who were illiterate. There is a need for targeted intervention, customized for low educated public, on TSP risk to children's health and tobacco control policy with specific focus on smoke-free home.     

Personal space smoking restrictions among African Americans

OBJECTIVES: This paper investigates the association between implementing a personal space smoking restriction for the home or automobile, and various sociodemographic, social, behavioral, and attitudinal variables. METHODS: Approximately 1000 African-American adults (aged >18 years) residing in non-institutionalized settings were randomly selected using a cross-sectional stratified cluster sample of ten U.S. congressional districts represented by African Americans. RESULTS: A 62.0% and 70.4% ban was found, respectively, on smoking in homes and cars. Multivariate analysis revealed that region, marital status, number of friends who smoked, beliefs about environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and smoking status predicted home smoking bans, while age, number of children in household, number of friends who smoked, and beliefs about ETS and smoking status predicted car smoking bans. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a substantial segment of African Americans have accepted and translated public policy concerns about ETS into practice and reveal other variables that could be targeted in future interventions to increase implementation of personal space smoking restrictions.     

The effects on smokers of Boston's smoke-free bar ordinance: a longitudinal analysis of changes in compliance, patronage, policy support, and smoking at home.

OBJECTIVE: We prospectively examined effects of the implementation of a smoking ban in bars on Boston, Massachusetts, smokers. METHODS: A representative sample of Massachusetts smokers was interviewed before and after the smoking ban was implemented in Boston. Participants were adult smokers living in Boston (n = 83) and in 203 other Massachusetts cities and towns that did not adopt smoking bans in bars prior to July 2004 (n = 903). The outcome measures were changes in reports of smoking in bars, frequency of bar patronage, support for smoke-free bars, smoking at home, and exposure to secondhand smoke at home based on town of residence. RESULTS: Compared to changes over the same time period among smokers in towns where smoking in bars was permitted, smokers in Boston were significantly less likely to observe smoking and less likely to decrease their bar patronage after the smoking ban was implemented. Changes in support for smoke-free bars, smoking patterns at home, and exposure to secondhand smoke at home did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: Expectations about noncompliance, declines in patronage, and displacement of smoking to the home as a consequence of extending smoking restrictions to bars are not supported by the data.     

The Effects of Smoking Bans on Self‐Assessed Health: Evidence from Germany

We examine the effects of smoking bans on self‐assessed health in Germany taking into account heterogeneities by smoking status, gender and age. We exploit regional variation in the dates of enactment and dates of enforcement across German federal states. Using data from the German Socio‐Economic Panel, our difference‐in‐differences estimates show that non‐smokers' health improves, whereas smokers report no or even adverse health effects in response to bans. We find statistically significant health improvements especially for non‐smokers living in households with at least one smoker. Non smokers' health improvements materialise largely with the enactment of smoking bans. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Environmental tobacco smoke in homes,motor vehicles and licensed premises: community attitudes and practices

OBJECTIVE: To assess community knowledge, attitudes and practices in relation to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) especially in homes, private motor vehicles and licensed premises, and to document levels of support for further government legislation. METHODS: 656 persons aged 18 years and over, a sub-sample in a computer-assisted telephone survey of 2,087 randomly selected respondents across NSW, answered 12 ETS-specific questions. The whole sample was asked demographic, smoking status and household membership questions. The overall response rate was 61.4% (consent rate 75.4%). RESULTS: Overall, 32.8% (95% CI 27.8-37.8) of children aged 0-4 years in the households surveyed were reported to live with at least one smoker. Agreement about ETS hazards was lowest in relation to child ear problems (31.2%) and sudden infant death syndrome (50.6%). Complete bans on smoking were reported in 69.9% of homes and 77.1% of private motor vehicles. The percentages favouring total bans in homes (p < 0.001) and private motor vehicles (p < 0.001) were significantly lower among smokers than non-smokers. Overall, 55.8% supported legislation to ban smoking in private vehicles carrying children. The majority support restrictions on smoking in non-eating areas of licensed clubs (88.7%) and hotels (84.8%). Overall, the data indicate a ban on smoking in licensed premises is likely to increase business. CONCLUSION: Smoking is banned in most NSW homes and private motor vehicles. Acceptance of ETS risks is high but there are important knowledge gaps. Considerable support exists for further government regulation of ETS. Media campaigns are likely to reinforce a public environment already receptive of the need for more government ETS restrictions.     

上海市中心城区吸烟者对儿童被动吸烟的知信行分析

[目的]了解上海市中心城区有5岁以下儿童家庭吸烟者的吸烟知识、信念、行为,为制定控烟干预措施和相关政策提供依据.[方法]采用结构式问卷进行基线数据的收集,对上海市2个社区572例研究对象(吸烟者及其5岁以下儿童各286人)进行入户间卷调查.[结果]吸烟者主要吸烟场所是家中居室,79.60%的父亲吸烟者和82.10%的非...