Household Implementation of Smoke-Free Rules in Homes and Cars: A Focus on Adolescent Smoking Behavior and Secondhand Smoke Exposure. Issue 1 (January 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Parks, Michael J.; Kingsbury, John H.; Boyle, Raymond G.; Evered, Sharrilyn
• Is Part Of: American journal of health promotion. Volume 33:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 70
• Page End: 78
• Publication Date: 2019-01
• Subjects: smoke-free rules -- smoke-free homes -- smoke-free cars -- adolescents -- tobacco use -- cigarette use -- secondhand smoke exposure -- changing tobacco landscape -- household rules; Health promotion -- Periodicals; Health Promotion; Health promotion; Periodicals; Periodicals; 613.05
• DOI: 10.1177/0890117118776901
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0890-1171

Abstract

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.