Tobacco-Smoke Incursions and Satisfaction Among Residents With Children in Multiunit Housing, United States, 2013

Assessing the choice of smoke-free policies for multiunit housing and its associated determinants in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the desire for smoke-free housing, determine the choice of smoke-free policies for multiunit housing (MUH), and identify the factors associated with policy choice among MUH residents in Bangladesh.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study from April to November 2019 using a semi-structured survey questionnaire.

SETTING

This study was conducted in seven divisional cities of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Chattogram, Rajshahi, Khulna, Sylhet, Barishal, and Rangpur.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 616 adult individuals living in MUH for at least 2 years participated in the study.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of the choice of smoke-free policies for MUH.

RESULTS

Overall, 94.8% of the respondents wanted smoke-free housing. Among those who wanted smoke-free housing, 44.9% preferred a smoke-free building policy, 28.3% preferred a smoke-free common area policy, 20.2% favoured a smoke-free unit policy, and 6.7% did not know what policy they should choose. Three factors were found to be significantly associated with the choice of a smoke-free building policy: staying at home for more than 12 hours (adjusted OR (aOR): 2.6; 95% CI 1.035 to 6.493), being a non-smoker (aOR: 3.2; 95% CI 1.317 to 7.582), and having at least one family member who smoked (aOR: 3.0; 95% CI 1.058 to 8.422). Results also showed that residents having at least one child under 15 in the family (aOR: 0.3; 95% CI 0.152 to 0.778) were less likely to choose a smoke-free common area policy and that women (aOR: 3.7; 95% CI 1.024 to 13.188) were more likely to choose a smoke-free unit policy.

CONCLUSIONS

MUH residents in urban Bangladesh highly demanded smoke-free housing. Most residents favoured a smoke-free building policy for MUH. Those who stayed at home for a longer time, were non-smokers, and had smoking family members were more likely to choose this policy.

Tobacco smoke incursion into private residences in Israel: a cross-sectional study examining public perceptions of private rights and support for governmental policies

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoke incursion (TSI) into private residences is a widespread problem in many countries. We sought to assess the prevalence of self-reported TSI and public attitudes about TSI in Israel, a country with a relatively high smoking prevalence and high population density.

METHODS

We conducted a random digit dial survey among residents in Israel (N = 285) in 2017, which examined the frequency, source, correlates of, and attitudes towards TSI and potential regulatory options. The cooperation rate was 63.9%.

RESULTS

Among respondents, 44.7% reported ever experiencing home TSI, with higher exposure among residents of multi-unit housing (MUH) (MUH versus private homes: aOR (Adjusted Odds Ratio): 3.60, CI (Confidence Interval): [1.96, 6.58], p < .001). Most respondents (69.8%), including nearly half of smokers, prioritized the right of individuals to breath smoke-free air in their apartments over the right of smokers to smoke in their apartments. Women and non-smokers were more likely to support the right to breathe smoke-free air (Women versus men: aOR: 2.77 CI: [1.48, 5.16], p = .001; Nonsmokers versus smokers: aOR: 3.21 CI [1.59, 6.48], p = .001). However, only about a quarter (24.8%) of respondents who ever experienced TSI raised the issue with the neighbor who smoked, the neighbor's landlord, or the building committee. The vast majority (85.2%) of all respondents, including three-quarters of smokers, supported smoke-free legislation for multi-unit housing (MUH), with those ever-exposed to TSI and non-smokers more likely to support legislation (ever-exposed versus never-exposed aOR = 2.99, CI [1.28, 6.97], p = 0.011; nonsmokers versus smokers aOR = 3.00, CI [1.28, 7.01], p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Among study participants, tobacco smoke incursion was a common, yet unwelcome experience. Most respondents believed that the right to breathe smoke-free air in one's apartment superseded that of neighbors to smoke anywhere in their home, and most supported legislation to prevent TSI. Though further study is needed to understand better TSI and effective methods for its prevention, our findings suggest that policy interventions, including legal action at the level of the Supreme Court and/or the Knesset, are needed. Regulation, policy initiatives and campaigns to denormalize smoking in proximity to other people and private residences globally could reduce the scope of this widespread problem, protect individuals from home TSI, and improve population health.

Policy-relevant differences between secondhand and thirdhand smoke: strengthening protections from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollutants

Starting in the 1970s, individuals, businesses and the public have increasingly benefited from policies prohibiting smoking indoors, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars in healthcare expenditures. Smokefree policies to protect against secondhand smoke exposure, however, do not fully protect the public from the persistent and toxic chemical residues from tobacco smoke (also known as thirdhand smoke) that linger in indoor environments for years after smoking stops. Nor do these policies address the economic costs that individuals, businesses and the public bear in their attempts to remediate this toxic residue. We discuss policy-relevant differences between secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke exposure: persistent pollutant reservoirs, pollutant transport, routes of exposure, the time gap between initial cause and effect, and remediation and disposal. We examine four policy considerations to better protect the public from involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke pollutants from all sources. We call for (a) redefining smokefree as free of tobacco smoke pollutants from secondhand and thirdhand smoke; (b) eliminating exemptions to comprehensive smoking bans; (c) identifying indoor environments with significant thirdhand smoke reservoirs; and (d) remediating thirdhand smoke. We use the case of California as an example of how secondhand smoke-protective laws may be strengthened to encompass thirdhand smoke protections. The health risks and economic costs of thirdhand smoke require that smokefree policies, environmental protections, real estate and rental disclosure policies, tenant protections, and consumer protection laws be strengthened to ensure that the public is fully protected from and informed about the risks of thirdhand smoke exposure.

Measurement of airborne nicotine, as a marker of secondhand smoke exposure, in homes with residents who smoke in 9 European countries

OBJECTIVE

Smoke-free policies are effective in preventing secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, but their adoption at home remains largely voluntary. This study aimed to quantify SHS exposure in homes with residents who smoke in Europe according to households' characteristics, tobacco consumption habits, and national contextual factors.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study (March 2017-September 2018) based on measurements of air nicotine inside 162 homes with residents who smoke from nine European countries. We installed passive samplers for seven consecutive days to monitor nicotine concentrations. Through self-administered questionnaires, we collected sociodemographic information and the number of individuals who smoke, smoking rules, frequency, location, and quantity of tobacco use in households. Country-level factors included the overall score in the Tobacco Control Scale 2016, the smoking prevalence, and self-reported SHS exposure prevalence. Nicotine concentrations were analyzed as continuous and dichotomous variables, categorized based on the limit of quantification of 0.02 μg/m³.

RESULTS

Overall, median nicotine concentration was 0.85 μg/m³ (interquartile range (IQR):0.15-4.42), and there was nicotine presence in 93% of homes. Participants reported that smoking was not permitted in approximately 20% of households, 40% had two or more residents who smoked, and in 79% residents had smoked inside during the week of sampling. We found higher nicotine concentrations in homes: with smell of tobacco smoke inside (1.45 μg/m³ IQR: 0.32-6.34), where smoking was allowed (1.60 μg/m³ IQR: 0.68-7.63), with two or more residents who smoked (2.42 μg/m³ IQR: 0.58-11.0), with more than 40 cigarettes smoked (2.92 μg/m³ IQR: 0.97-10.61), and where two or more residents smoked inside (4.02 μg/m³ IQR: 1.58-11.74). Household nicotine concentrations were significantly higher in countries with higher national smoking prevalence and self-reported SHS exposure prevalence (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SHS concentrations in homes with individuals who smoke were approximately twenty times higher in homes that allowed smoking compared to those reporting smoke-free household rules. Evidence-based interventions promoting smoke-free homes should be implemented in combination with strengthening other MPOWER measures.

Self-Reported Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Support for Complete Smoking Bans in Multiunit Housing Among Smokers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom

Introduction

Involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke most frequently occurs at home, which is problematic for residents of multiunit housing (MUH). The primary objective of this study was to estimate the extent of secondhand smoke incursions into the homes of MUH smokers who banned smoking in their homes but lived in buildings where smoking is allowed.

Methods

We used data from Wave 9 of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. We estimated 1) the prevalence of complete smoking bans among smokers living in single-family homes vs MUH in the United States (n = 3,208), Canada (n = 1,592), and the United Kingdom (n = 1,403) from 2013 to 2015; 2) the extent of secondhand smoke incursions into the homes of MUH smokers who banned smoking in their units but lived in buildings that allow smoking; and 3) MUH smokers’ preferences for complete smoking bans in MUH. Weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated the country-specific adjusted prevalence of all outcomes.

Results

Overall, 53.0% of smokers living in single-family homes completely banned smoking in their homes, compared with 44.8% of smokers in MUH. Across all 3 countries, only 27.8% of MUH smokers reported that smoking was completely prohibited in their building. A similar percentage of MUH smokers who banned smoking in their home but lived in buildings allowing smoking reported a secondhand smoke incursion into their home in the United States (29.9%; 95% CI, 20.4%–41.5%), Canada (38.4%; 95% CI, 26.7%–51.6%), and the United Kingdom (24.7%; 95% CI, 15.7%–36.7%). Across all 3 countries, 36.1% (95% CI, 33.4%–38.9%) of smokers in MUH reported they preferred a complete smoking ban in all building areas.

Conclusion

A need remains to educate MUH operators and residents about the benefits of comprehensive smoke-free policies.

Persistent tobacco smoke residue in multiunit housing: Legacy of permissive indoor smoking policies and challenges in the implementation of smoking bans

Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a common indoor pollutant in multiunit housing (MUH). It is also the precursor of thirdhand smoke (THS), the toxic mixture of tobacco smoke residue that accumulates in indoor environments where tobacco has been used. This study examined the levels, distribution, and factors associated with THS pollution in low-income MUH. Interviews were conducted 2016-2018 in a cross-sectional study of N = 220 MUH homes in San Diego, California. Two surface wipe samples were collected per home and analyzed for nicotine, a THS marker, using liquid chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. Nicotine was detected in all homes of nonsmokers with indoor smoking bans (Geo Mean = 1.67 µg/m²; 95% CI = [1.23;2.30]) and smokers regardless of an indoor ban (Geo Mean = 4.80 µg/m²; 95% CI = [1.89;12.19]). Approximately 10% of nonsmokers' homes with smoking bans showed nicotine levels higher than the average level in homes of smokers without smoking bans from previous studies (≥30 µg/m²). Housing for seniors, smoking bans on balconies, indoor tobacco use, difficult to reach surfaces, and self-reported African-American race/ethnicity were independently associated with higher THS levels. Individual cases demonstrated that high levels of surface nicotine may persist in nonsmoker homes for years after tobacco use even in the presence of indoor smoking bans. To achieve MUH free of tobacco smoke pollutants, attention must be given to identifying and remediating highly polluted units and to implementing smoking policies that prevent new accumulation of THS. As THS is a form of toxic tobacco product waste, responsibility for preventing and mitigating harmful impacts should include manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.

Uneven Access to Smoke-Free Laws and Policies and Its Effect on Health Equity in the United States: 2000-2019

Tobacco control measures have played an important role in the reduction of the cigarette smoking prevalence among US adults.However, although overall smoking prevalence has declined, it remains high among many subpopulations that are disproportionately burdened by tobacco use, resulting in tobacco-related health disparities. Slow diffusion of smoke-free laws to rural regions, particularly in the South and Southeast, and uneven adoption of voluntary policies in single-family homes and multiunit housing are key policy variables associated with the disproportionate burden of tobacco-related health disparities in these subpopulations.Developing policies that expand the reach of comprehensive smoke-free laws not only will facilitate the decline in smoking prevalence among subpopulations disproportionately burdened by tobacco use but will also decrease exposure to secondhand smoke and further reduce tobacco-caused health disparities in the United States.