Smokefree home rules adoption by smokers and nonsmokers: Minnesota, 1999-2010

The effects of community participation program on smoke-free homes in a suburban community of Thailand

INTRODUCTION

Smoking inside the home affects the health of both the smoker and family members via secondhand exposure. This research examined the impact of a community participation program on creating smoke-free homes in a suburban community in Thanyaburi district, Pathumthani province in Thailand.

METHODS

The study involved families, with a smoker in the home, that were randomly assigned to intervention and control groups each containing 27 families. The intervention group was administered with the community participation program for smoke-free homes for 5 sessions during the 6-month period of study. The program included providing information on secondhand smoking and harms, knowledge about quitting smoking and healthcare support, practice skills, campaigns in the community, visiting and encouraging, and reflecting and evaluation. The control group was normally treated by the community committee and health volunteers. Data collection was undertaken at baseline and at 6 months after implementation by an interview with questionnaires.

RESULTS

Our results show that after the implementation, the intervention group reported significantly higher mean score on skills in negotiating with smokers for a smoking-ban inside home and mean score on emotional support for non-smoking inside the home than those at baseline and those of the control group. The proportion having smoking ban home rules in the intervention group was significantly higher than at baseline and that of the control group (92.6% vs 18.5%). The proportion of smoke-free homes was higher in the intervention than in the control group (75% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that community participation programs for smoke-free home may be effective in raising awareness on the impact of secondhand smoke among family members and in working together to manage smoke-free home environments. The program may be applicable for further development within communities to achieve smoke-free homes.

Statewide Prevalence of Smoke-Free and Vape-Free Homes, by Tobacco Product Use, Minnesota, 2018

INTRODUCTION

Securing clean indoor air laws is a major tobacco control accomplishment of the past 15 years. The public quickly adopted and supported such policies both in public and private spaces. Clean indoor air is now threatened by the emergence of e-cigarettes. E-cigarette aerosol contains nicotine, heavy metals, and carcinogens, and the long-term effect of secondhand exposure is unknown. Surveillance is necessary to track voluntary rules on smoking and vaping in the home.

METHODS

The Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey (MATS) is a series of cross-sectional, random-digit-dial telephone surveys on smoking, vaping, and other tobacco-related behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs among Minnesota adults. MATS measured voluntary smoke-free rules in the home in 2014 (N = 9,304) and measured both smoke-free and vape-free home rules in 2018 (N = 6,055).

RESULTS

The prevalence of smoke-free home rules among Minnesota adults in 2018 was 91.5% (95% CI, 90.5%-92.5%), up slightly from 89.3% (95% CI, 88.4%-90.2%) in 2014. In comparison, 84.0% (95% CI, 82.7%-85.3%) reported vape-free home rules. Although 70.0% (95% CI, 66.0%-73.0%) of smokers in 2018 reported smoke-free home rules, only 23.3% (95% CI, 15.0%-31.6%) of e-cigarette users reported vape-free home rules. Living with children younger than 18 years significantly increased the odds of having smoke-free and vape-free home rules.

CONCLUSION

Although widespread adoption of voluntary smoke-free and vape-free home rules demonstrates a positive change in social norms, most e-cigarette users allow vaping in their homes, including those who live with children younger than 18. Tracking voluntary smoke-free and vape-free home rules and efforts to encourage them are important to improve the public's health.

Location and duration of secondhand smoke exposure among Minnesota Nonsmokers, 2018

In 2007 Minnesota passed into law a comprehensive ban on indoor smoking of tobacco products in public places including bars, restaurants, and workplaces. Despite reductions in smoking prevalence in the past 12 years, people are still exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS). It remains important to understand where and how long nonsmokers face exposure to SHS.

The 2018 Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey was analyzed to examine self-reported SHS exposure among nonsmoking adults. We report prevalence and 95 percent confidence intervals of SHS exposure overall, by specific locations, and by demographics. Length of exposure to SHS was summarized in median minutes.

Overall, 30 percent of nonsmokers reported exposure in the past seven days. A total of 1382 participants indicated a location of exposure. The most common locations other than one’s own home or car included building entrances (18.7 [16.2–21.1] percent), somewhere else outdoors (17.7 [15.1–20.3] percent), and restaurant/bar patios (12.8 [10.5–15.0] percent). Exposure was more likely to be reported by young adults (44.6 percent) and males (33.7 percent). The locations with the longest duration of SHS exposure in the prior seven days were a gambling venue (117.2 [72.2–162.2] minutes), another person’s home (26.1 [15.4–36.8] minutes), and a bus stop (10.8 [4.7–16.9] minutes).

Monitoring nonsmokers’ self-reported exposure to SHS remains important as a way to measure the impact and compliance with smoke-free policies. Additional information on the location and duration of exposure can be used programmatically to address high levels of exposure and consider additional policies or strategies.

Household Implementation of Smoke-Free Rules in Homes and Cars: A Focus on Adolescent Smoking Behavior and Secondhand Smoke Exposure

PURPOSE

This study addresses the dearth of population-based research on how comprehensive household smoke-free rules (ie, in the home and car) relate to tobacco use and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among adolescents.

DESIGN

Analysis of 2014 Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey.

SETTING

Representative sample of Minnesota youth.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1287 youth who lived with a smoker.

MEASURES

Measures included household smoke-free rules (no rules, partial rules-home or car, but not both-and comprehensive rules), lifetime and 30-day cigarette use, 30-day cigarette and other product use, and SHS exposure in past 7 days in home and car.

ANALYSIS

Weighted multivariate logistic, zero-inflated Poisson, and zero-inflated negative binomial regressions were used.

RESULTS

Compared to comprehensive rules, partial and no smoke-free rules were significantly and positively related to lifetime cigarette use (respectively, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.24-2.61; AOR = 2.87, 95% CI = 1.93-4.25), and a similar significant pattern was found for 30-day cigarette use (respectively, AOR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.21-4.02; AOR = 2.45, 95% CI = 1.34-4.50). No smoke-free rules significantly predicted using cigarettes and other tobacco products compared to comprehensive rules. In both descriptive and regression analyses, we found SHS exposure rates in both the home and car were significantly lower among youth whose household implemented comprehensive smoke-free rules.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive smoke-free rules protect youth from the harms of caregiver tobacco use. Relative to both partial and no smoke-free rules, comprehensive smoke-free rules have a marked impact on tobacco use and SHS exposure among youth who live with a smoker. Health promotion efforts should promote comprehensive smoke-free rules among all households and particularly households with children and adolescents.

Smoke-Free Rules in Homes and Cars Among Smokers and Nonsmokers in Minnesota

We examined prevalence and predictors of comprehensive smoke-free household rules (ie, smoke-free homes and cars) among smokers and nonsmokers in Minnesota. Data came from the 2014 Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey; weighted analyses consisted of descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Most adult smokers implemented home-only smoke-free rules (43%) while most nonsmokers implemented comprehensive smoke-free rules (home and car; 85%). Comprehensive smoke-free rules were more common among people with high socioeconomic status (SES), married people, and people who did not live with a smoker; those with a child in the home were more likely to implement smoke-free homes but not smoke-free cars. Public health practitioners should focus on addressing the majority of smokers who do not implement comprehensive smoke-free household rules, such as low-SES populations, and addressing caregivers who do not implement smoke-free car rules.

Smoke-free homes and attitudes towards banning smoking in vehicles carrying children in Spain (2016)

OBJECTIVE

To describe the voluntary adoption of smoke-free homes and social attitudes in Spain towards banning smoking in vehicles in which children are present.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of a representative sample of the adult Spanish population age range, 18-75 years (n=1036). The field work was conducted via a computer-assisted telephone survey in March and April 2016. Survey respondents answered questions about smoking rules at home and attitudes towards a smoking ban in cars with or without children. Home smoking rules were defined as complete (smoking not allowed anywhere in the house), partial (smoking allowed in some areas inside the house) or absent (smoking allowed everywhere).

RESULTS

Most (83.0%) of the surveyed population had some type of smoking restriction in place at home (45.6% complete and 37.5% partial). There were significant differences between groups according to age group (the highest prevalence was 86.1% from 66 to 75 years and the lowest prevalence was 77.8% from 46 to 65 years) and smoking status (the highest prevalence was 89.4% in people who had never been smokers and the lowest prevalence was 75.0% in current smokers) with regards to the prevalence of smoke-free homes (p<0.05), with partial bans more prevalent in smoking households (49.0%). Most (61.6%) of the population favored banning smoking in cars, and 90.1% supported a ban in cars carrying minors. Attitudes towards smoking regulation in cars (with or without children) varied significantly by age group (the highest prevalence was 81.9% from 66 to 75 years and the lowest prevalence was 54.5% from 18 to 45 years) and smoking status (the highest prevalence was 71.4% in people who had never been smokers and the lowest prevalence was 46.0% in current smokers). However, no significant differences were found with regard to attitudes towards smoking regulation in cars carrying children, regardless of sex, age, social class, or smoking status.

CONCLUSION

Approximately half of the adult population in Spain have implemented a complete smoke-free rule at home. More than 9 out of 10 adults favor regulating smoking in cars in the presence of minors. These findings support the expansion of smoke-free regulations to include private vehicles, particularly when minors are in the car.

Tobacco Use, Secondhand Smoke, and Smoke-Free Home Rules in Multiunit Housing

INTRODUCTION

Multiunit housing (MUH) residents are particularly susceptible to involuntary secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in their home, which can enter their living units from nearby units and shared areas where smoking occurs. To date, no study has assessed non-cigarette tobacco use among MUH residents. This study assessed the prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of tobacco use (combustible, noncombustible, any tobacco use including electronic cigarettes), smoke-free home rules, and SHS incursions among U.S. MUH residents.

METHODS

Data came from the 2013-2014 National Adult Tobacco Survey, a telephone survey of U.S. adults aged ≥18 years. Analyses were conducted in 2015. Prevalence of current tobacco use and smoke-free home rules were assessed overall and by sociodemographics, stratified by housing type (single family versus MUH). Prevalence and adjusted odds of SHS incursions among MUH residents with smoke-free home rules were assessed.

RESULTS

Tobacco use was higher among adults living in MUH (24.7%) than those in single-family housing (18.9%, p<0.05). Smoke-free home rules were higher among adults living in single-family housing (86.7%) than those in MUH (80.9%, p<0.05). Among MUH residents with smoke-free homes, 34.4% experienced SHS incursions. Adjusted odds of SHS incursions were greater among women, younger adults, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and those with lower income.

CONCLUSIONS

One quarter of MUH residents use tobacco, and one third of MUH residents with smoke-free rules experience SHS incursions. Interventions are warranted to promote tobacco cessation and smoke-free building policies to protect all MUH residents, employees, and visitors from the dangers of tobacco use and SHS.

Secondhand Smoke Exposure 7 Years After an Indoor Smoke-Free Law

PURPOSE

To examine locations of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure among nonsmokers, 7 years after a statewide smoke-free policy.

DESIGN

Data collected via statewide, random digit dial telephone survey. Response rates were 64.7% for landline and 73.5% for cell phone.

SETTING

Minnesota, 2014.

PARTICIPANTS

Representative sample of 7887 nonsmoking adults.

MEASURES

Self-reported locations of SHS exposure and opinions on smoke-free restrictions.

ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 35.5% of nonsmokers reported SHS exposure in the past 7 days. The greatest proportion of exposure occurred in community settings (31.7%) followed by cars (6.9%) and in the home (3.2%). Young adults were more likely to be exposed in a home or car than older adults. Nonsmokers living with a smoker were 39.6 (20.6-75.8) times more likely to be exposed to SHS in their home and 5.3 (4.1-6.8) times more likely to be exposed in a car, compared to those who did not live with a smoker.

CONCLUSION

SHS exposure continues after comprehensive smoke-free policies restricted it from public places. Disparities in exposure rates exist for those who live with a smoker, are young, and have low incomes. Findings suggest the need for additional policies that will have the greatest public health benefit.

Correlates of smoke-free home policies in Shanghai, China

Background. Approximately 63.7% of nonsmokers in China are exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS) in their homes. The current study documents the prevalence and correlates of smoke-free home policies in Shanghai, as well as reasons for implementing such a policy and places where smoking is most commonly allowed. Methods. We conducted in-person surveys of 500 participants using a multistage proportional random sampling design in an urban and suburban district. Results. Overall, 35.3% had a smoke-free home policy. In the logistic regression, having higher income, not having smokers in the home, having children in the home, having fewer friends/relatives who permit smoking at home, and not being a current smoker were correlates of having a smoke-free home policy (P < 0.05). Concern about the health impact of SHS was reportedly the most important reason for establishing a smoke-free home. Among participants with no or partial bans, the most common places where smoking was allowed included the living room (64.2%), kitchen (46.1%), and bathroom (33.8%). Conclusions. Smoke-free home policies were in place for a minority of households surveyed. Establishing such a policy was influenced by personal smoking behavior and social factors. These findings suggest an urgent need to promote smoke-free home policies through tobacco control programs.

Association between being employed in a smoke-free workplace and living in a smoke-free home: evidence from 15 low and middle income countries

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether being employed in a smoke-free workplace is associated with living in a smoke-free home in 15 low and middle income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

Country-specific individual level analyses of cross-sectional Global Adult Tobacco Survey data (2008-2011) from 15 LMICs was conducted using multiple logistic regression. The dependent variable was living in a smoke-free home; the independent variable was being employed in a smoke-free workplace. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, residence, region, education, occupation, current smoking, current smokeless tobacco use and number of household members. Individual country results were combined in a random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In each country, the percentage of participants employed in a smoke-free workplace who reported living in a smoke-free home was higher than those employed in a workplace not smoke-free. The adjusted odds ratios (AORs) of living in a smoke-free home among participants employed in a smoke-free workplace (vs. those employed where smoking occurred) were statistically significant in 13 of the 15 countries, ranging from 1.12 [95% CI 0.79-1.58] in Uruguay to 2.29 [1.37-3.83] in China. The pooled AOR was 1.61 [1.46-1.79].

CONCLUSION

In LMICs, employment in a smoke-free workplace is associated with living in a smoke-free home. Accelerated implementation of comprehensive smoke-free policies is likely to result in substantial population health benefits in these settings.

Smoke-free homes, strength of smoke-free law, and children in the home

INTRODUCTION

Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a leading cause of childhood illness and premature death, especially in rural areas. The study examined the relationship of having a smoke-free home, strength of smoke-free law (SFL) in the county of residence, having one or more minor children in the home, rural/urban location, and demographics.

METHODS

An Internet-based panel survey was administered to Kentucky residents from 2007 to 2012. Sample size ranged from 400 to 513 per year; N = 2,653 total. Most were female, aged 35-54, had at least some college education, and lived in a smoke-free home. Almost half lived in a county with a comprehensive SFL; 14% lived in a county with a moderate or weak law.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression revealed that the significant predictors of a smoke-free home included having education beyond high school, being a nonsmoker, living in an urban county, and having a year of participation in the survey. Controlling for smoking status and other personal characteristics, those who responded to the survey in the last 2 years of administration were more likely to have a smoke-free home compared to the reference year of 2007. Respondents living in urban counties were nearly 2 times more likely to report a smoke-free home than rural dwellers.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoke-free homes in urban areas, where SFLs may be the norm, may be more typical than in rural communities. Public awareness campaigns and education about the benefits of smoke-free homes is needed, especially in rural areas, targeting smokers, those with less education, and those with children living in the home.