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

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.

Second-Hand Smoke Exposure at Home in the United States; Minorities' Diminished Returns

Introduction

Educational attainment and poverty status are two strong socioeconomic status (SES) indicators that protect individuals against exposure to second-hand smoke. Minorities' Diminished Returns (MDRs), however, refer to smaller protective effects of SES indicators among ethnic minority groups such as Hispanics and Blacks, compared to non-Hispanic Whites. This study explored ethnic differences in the effects of educational attainment and poverty status on second-hand smoke exposure in the homes of American adults.

Methods

This cross-sectional study included 18,274 non-smoking adults who had participated in the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH; 2013). The independent variables were educational attainment and poverty status. The dependent variable was second-hand smoke exposure at home. Age and region of residence were the covariates. Ethnicity was the moderator.

Results

Overall, individuals with a higher educational attainment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.74-0.79) and those who lived out of poverty (OR = 0.56, 95% CI =0.51-0.62) had lower odds of second-hand smoke exposure at home. Hispanic ethnicity showed significant interactions with both SES indicators, suggesting that the protective effects of education and poverty on second-hand smoke exposure at home are smaller for Hispanics (ORs for interaction with education and poverty status = 1.30 and 1.26, P < 0.05) than for Non-Hispanics.

Conclusion

In the US, high SES Hispanics remain at high risk of exposure to second-hand smoke at home despite a high education and income. High SES better reduces environmental exposures for non-Hispanic than for Hispanic individuals.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Smoking Behaviors and Attitudes of Parents in Pediatric Primary Care Settings

Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure is considered an important public health issue in pediatric population. In this study, we aimed to investigate parents’ knowledge on side effects of passive smoking and counseling for parental smoking among pediatricians and family practitioners. Participants were biological parents of pediatric patients up to the age of 18 years old who attended Pediatric Hospital of Medical University of Warsaw. The questionnaire included 28 questions and queries on environmental tobacco smoke in children’s environment. Medical students identified potential subjects and handed out previously created questionnaires. In total, 506 parents of children aged 0–18 years old were interviewed; 41% (207/506) of parents were smokers, 23% (114/506) were asked about ETS exposure by their pediatricians and 41% (205/506) by family physicians during routine visits. Only a minority of the respondents confirmed having “no smoking” policy in their car 31% (157/506) or in their households 24% (121/506). All parents believed that passive smoking could cause at least one harmful effect: most common were more frequent respiratory infections (43%), asthma (40%), and low birth weight (37%). Among smoking parents, 38% (78/207) has tried to quit smoking for their child’s health sake; 63% (131/207) of smokers have never been asked to quit smoking by their doctor. Parents’ understanding of passive smoking among children differs from current medical knowledge. Rates of screening and counseling for parental smoking in pediatric and family practices are still unsatisfactory.

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.

Self-evaluation of tobacco exposure by allied health students in a community college setting

Objective:

Tobacco education is among the initiatives encouraged for health professionals to help them appreciate the significance of addressing tobacco use among their patients. In this pilot study, a nicotine biomarker (cotinine) study was introduced to an applied microbiology course required of all allied health students. Participants assessed their own smoking status in the previous 24 h using a two-dimensional experimental design of a questionnaire and rapid urinary cotinine immunoassay. The study goals were >90% participation of the home-administered assay and high correlation of the results to cotinine standards. Allied health students (medical assistants, respiratory therapists, surgical technicians) were selected as the initial test group.

Methods:

The study was initiated 10 months after the college became 100% tobacco free. Participants were initially trained on the use and interpretation of the rapid cotinine test using three cotinine standards (0, 400, and 2000 ng/mL urine). Participants subsequently tested their own first-morning urine sample at home and then answered a questionnaire about their tobacco smoke (and/or nicotine) exposure in the previous 24-h period.

Results:

The cotinine laboratory was offered to a total of 161 students (88% female) over 24 months. Participants who reported no exposure to a nicotine product in any venue made up 55% of the group. Daily smokers made up 17% of the study participants as confirmed by their elevated cotinine levels (greater than 100 ng/mL urine). The remaining participants (28%) either resided with smokers and/or rode in an automobile with an individual smoking in the previous 24 h. Their cotinine levels were moderately elevated in some cases, particularly if they had ridden in a car with a smoker.

Conclusion:

The pilot study met our objectives of >90% participation and high correlation of urinary cotinine levels with questionnaire self-reports.