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. Partici...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of health promotion 2018-01, Vol.32 (1), p.131-134
Hauptverfasser: St. Claire, Ann W., Amato, Michael S., Boyle, Raymond G., Rode, Peter, Kinney, Ann M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:0890-1171
2168-6602
DOI:10.1177/0890117116671390