Public Support for Smoke-Free Section 8 Public Housing

Disparities in Smokefree and Vapefree Home Rules and Smokefree Policy Attitudes Based on Housing Type and Cigarette Smoking Status, United States, 2019

This study examined variations in cigarette smoking status, home smoking and vaping rules, and attitudes toward smoking rules among U.S. adults. We analyzed data from the 2019 U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey Supplements (n = 40,296 adults) and calculated weighted prevalence estimates of adult cigarette smoking based on housing type. In 2019, multi-unit housing (MUH) residents who currently smoked were predominantly residents of privately rented housing (66.9%), followed by privately owned (17.6%) and public housing (15.5%). MUH residents who currently smoked had the highest proportions of allowing smoking (26.7%) or vaping (29.1%) anywhere inside their homes and were least likely to support rules allowing smoking inside all MUH apartments or living areas. In the adjusted models, MUH residents with a current smoking status were 92% less likely to have a complete smoking ban. More than one in four MUH residents with a current smoking status allowed all smoking inside the home and supported allowing smoking inside all MUH apartment or living areas, reinforcing how MUH residents may be at higher risk of experiencing secondhand smoke or aerosol exposure, or incursions within their places of residence. Our results can inform the development, implementation, and sustainment of strategies to reduce exposures from tobacco and nicotine products in all living environments.

Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Smoke-free policies are essential to protect people against tobacco smoke exposure. To successfully implement smoke-free policies that go beyond enclosed public places and workplaces, public support is important. We undertook a comprehensive systematic review of levels and determinants of public support for indoor (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, six electronic databases were searched for studies (published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022) reporting support for (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies in representative samples of at least 400 respondents aged 16 years and above. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual reports using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was proportion support for smoke-free policies, grouped according to location covered. Three-level meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed.

Findings

14,749 records were screened, of which 107 were included; 42 had low risk of bias and 65 were at moderate risk. 99 studies were included in the meta-analyses, reporting 326 measures of support from 896,016 individuals across 33 different countries. Support was pooled for indoor private areas (e.g., private cars, homes: 73%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 66-79), indoor semi-private areas (e.g., multi-unit housing: 70%, 95% CI: 48-86), outdoor hospitality areas (e.g., café and restaurant terraces: 50%, 95% CI: 43-56), outdoor non-hospitality areas (e.g., school grounds, playgrounds, parks, beaches: 69%, 95% CI: 64-73), outdoor semi-private areas (e.g., shared gardens: 67%, 95% CI: 53-79) and outdoor private areas (e.g., private balconies: 41%, 95% CI: 18-69). Subcategories showed highest support for smoke-free cars with children (86%, 95% CI: 81-89), playgrounds (80%, 95% CI: 74-86) and school grounds (76%, 95% CI: 69-83). Non-smokers and ex-smokers were more in favour of smoke-free policies compared to smokers. Support generally increased over time, and following implementation of each smoke-free policy.

Interpretation

Our findings suggested that public support for novel smoke-free policies is high, especially in places frequented by children. Governments should be reassured about public support for implementation of novel smoke-free policies.

Funding

Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation.

Home Smoke-Free Policies as Children Age: Urban, Rural, and Suburban Differences

INTRODUCTION

Parents/guardians can effectively reduce tobacco smoking and secondhand smoke exposure among youth by adopting and enforcing rules against indoor tobacco smoking (ie, home smoke-free policies). We investigate home smoke-free policies from childhood to adolescence in the United States and across rural, suburban, and urban households.

AIMS AND METHODS

We analyzed 2019-2020 National Survey of Children's Health data from n = 5,955 parents of youth aged 0-17, living at home with a tobacco smoker in the United States (U.S). Geographical categories were: rural, suburban, and urban. Home smoke-free policy reflected prohibiting tobacco smoking inside the home. Weighted logistic regressions examined the (1) association between youth age and home smoke-free policies, (2) interaction between geographic category and youth age, and (3) differing associations between youth age and home smoke-free policies by geography. Models controlled for youth race, ethnicity, sex, parental education, household annual income, and home structure.

RESULTS

Approximately 13.2% of U.S. households with a smoker did not have a home smoke-free policy. Stratified analyses found one-year increase in youth age was associated with lower odds of having a home smoke-free policy in rural (aOR:0.91; 95%CI: 0.87-0.95) and urban (aOR: 0.96; 95%CI: 0.92-1.00; p = .039), but not suburban (aOR:1.00; 95%CI: 0.95-1.05) households, controlling for covariates.

CONCLUSION

Odds of having a smoke-free home in the U.S. declined significantly in rural (9% per year) and urban (4%) but not suburban (0%) households. We quantify declines in home smoke-free policies as children age and identify geographic disparities for this environmental determinant of health.

IMPLICATIONS

Health promotion efforts targeting secondhand smoke prevention is needed, particularly for parents of older youth. Furthermore, there is a clear geographic bias in secondhand smoke exposure among all youth particularly older youth. Tailored interventions are needed to address geographic disparities in secondhand smoke exposure among rural and urban youth.

Measuring public opinion and acceptability of prevention policies: an integrative review and narrative synthesis of methods

Acceptability of and public support for prevention are an important part of facilitating policy implementation. This review aims to identify, summarize and synthesize the methods and study designs used to measure and understand public opinion, community attitudes and acceptability of strategies to prevent chronic noncommunicable disease (NCDs) in order to allow for examination of imbalances in methodological approaches and gaps in content areas. We searched four scientific databases (CINAHL, Embase, Ovid/MEDLINE and Scopus) for peer-reviewed, English-language studies published between January 2011 and March 2020 in high-income, democratic countries across North America, Europe and the Asia–Pacific region. Studies were included if they focused on opinions, attitudes and acceptability of primary prevention strategies and interventions addressing the key NCD risk factors of alcohol use, unhealthy diet, overweight/obesity, tobacco use and smoking, and physical inactivity. A total of 293 studies were included. Two thirds of studies (n = 194, 66%) used quantitative methods such as cross-sectional studies involving surveys of representative (n = 129, 44%) or convenience (n = 42, 14%) samples. A smaller number of studies used qualitative methods (n = 60, 20%) such as focus groups (n = 21, 7%) and interviews (n = 21, 7%). Thirty-nine studies (13%) used mixed methods such as content analysis of news media (n = 17, 6%). Tobacco control remains the dominant topic of public opinion literature about prevention (n = 124, 42%). Few studies looked solely at physical inactivity (n = 17, 6%). The results of this review suggest that public opinion and acceptability of prevention in the peer-reviewed literature is investigated primarily through cross-sectional surveys. Qualitative and mixed methods may provide more nuanced insights which can be used to facilitate policy implementation of more upstream strategies and policies to prevent NCDs.

Secondhand Smoke Exposure at Home and/or in a Vehicle: Differences Between Urban and Non-Urban Adolescents in the United States, From 2015 to 2018

INTRODUCTION

Secondhand smoke exposure during adolescence is linked to increased risk for cigarette smoking susceptibility and initiation. Non-urban youth may encounter a disproportionate number social and environmental risk factors for secondhand smoke exposure. Research is needed to explore geographic disparities in secondhand smoke exposure.

AIMS AND METHODS

Four years of National Youth Tobacco Survey (2015-2018) data were pooled. Participants were 69 249 middle and high school students. Multivariable logistic regression examined the relationship between geographic region and secondhand smoke exposure (1) at home and (2) in a vehicle. A multivariable, multinomial logistic regression examined the relationship between geographic region and number of sources of secondhand smoke exposure (ie, 0, 1 source, 2 sources). Covariates included sex, race/ethnicity, grade level, past 30-day tobacco use, and living with a tobacco user.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2018, ~28.4% of middle and high school students reported secondhand smoke exposure either at home, in a vehicle, or both. Non-urban youth had greater odds of reporting secondhand smoke exposure at home (Adj OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.38) and in a vehicle (Adj OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.35 to 1.65), compared with urban youth. Similarly, non-urban youth had greater odds of reporting secondhand smoke exposure via one source (RRR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.31) and two sources (RRR: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.42 to 1.82), relative to no exposure, than urban youth.

CONCLUSION

Secondhand smoke exposure at home and/or in a vehicle varies across geographic region. Targeted interventions should be developed and implemented to reduce secondhand smoke exposure among at-risk youth.

IMPLICATIONS

Findings showcase the need to address secondhand smoke exposure in non-urban areas and how it impacts adolescents. Public health interventions and regulatory policies aimed at improving social norms and expanding health infrastructure in rural communities should be designed and implemented in order to prevent and reduce secondhand smoke exposure among non-urban youth.