Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Attitudes and experiences with secondhand smoke and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate multiunit housing residents living in six diverse communities in the USA.
Tob Control. 2018 03; 27(2):194-202.TC

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Given that higher smoking rates persist among lower socioeconomic populations, multiunit housing (MUH) environments may result in higher secondhand smoke (SHS) exposures among subsidised MUH residents. This cross-sectional assessment compares experiences with SHS and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate MUH residents living in six US communities.

METHODS

MUH residents (n=1565) were surveyed regarding their smoke-free rules (home and building), SHS exposures and preferences towards smoke-free policies. Binary logistic regression identified predictors of each outcome, focusing on differences by subsidised housing status (subsidised vs market rate).

RESULTS

Among residents enforcing smoke-free home rules (76%, overall), 50% reported SHS incursions into their unit. Only 23% reported living in a smoke-free building; 56% of those living in smoking-allowable buildings reported preferences towards smoke-free building policies. Among market-rate housing residents, smoke-free home (OR=4.18) and building (OR=2.26) rules were significantly higher when children were present. Smoke-free building rules reduced the odds of SHS incursions among market-rate housing residents (OR=0.50), but no association was observed among subsidised housing residents. Non-smoking subsidised housing residents exhibited stronger preferences for smoke-free policies compared with those in market-rate housing.

DISCUSSION

Smoke-free home rules may not protect MUH residents from SHS exposures, particularly in subsidised MUH. Although strong preferences towards smoke-free policies were present overall, subsidised MUH residents may have fewer alternative smoke-free housing options available. Therefore, all publicly funded housing should be smoke free to protect these vulnerable populations. However, continued efforts to encourage privately owned MUH operators to adopt smoke-free policies are also necessary.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA. Department of Epidemiology and Environmental Health, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA.Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA.Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28302920

Citation

Gentzke, Andrea S., et al. "Attitudes and Experiences With Secondhand Smoke and Smoke-free Policies Among Subsidised and Market-rate Multiunit Housing Residents Living in Six Diverse Communities in the USA." Tobacco Control, vol. 27, no. 2, 2018, pp. 194-202.
Gentzke AS, Hyland A, Kiviniemi M, et al. Attitudes and experiences with secondhand smoke and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate multiunit housing residents living in six diverse communities in the USA. Tob Control. 2018;27(2):194-202.
Gentzke, A. S., Hyland, A., Kiviniemi, M., & Travers, M. J. (2018). Attitudes and experiences with secondhand smoke and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate multiunit housing residents living in six diverse communities in the USA. Tobacco Control, 27(2), 194-202. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053374
Gentzke AS, et al. Attitudes and Experiences With Secondhand Smoke and Smoke-free Policies Among Subsidised and Market-rate Multiunit Housing Residents Living in Six Diverse Communities in the USA. Tob Control. 2018;27(2):194-202. PubMed PMID: 28302920.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Attitudes and experiences with secondhand smoke and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate multiunit housing residents living in six diverse communities in the USA. AU - Gentzke,Andrea S, AU - Hyland,Andrew, AU - Kiviniemi,Marc, AU - Travers,Mark J, Y1 - 2017/03/16/ PY - 2016/08/11/received PY - 2017/01/16/revised PY - 2017/02/14/accepted PY - 2017/3/18/pubmed PY - 2018/12/12/medline PY - 2017/3/18/entrez KW - Multiunit Housing KW - Policy KW - Secondhand Smoke KW - Smoke-free SP - 194 EP - 202 JF - Tobacco control JO - Tob Control VL - 27 IS - 2 N2 - BACKGROUND: Given that higher smoking rates persist among lower socioeconomic populations, multiunit housing (MUH) environments may result in higher secondhand smoke (SHS) exposures among subsidised MUH residents. This cross-sectional assessment compares experiences with SHS and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate MUH residents living in six US communities. METHODS: MUH residents (n=1565) were surveyed regarding their smoke-free rules (home and building), SHS exposures and preferences towards smoke-free policies. Binary logistic regression identified predictors of each outcome, focusing on differences by subsidised housing status (subsidised vs market rate). RESULTS: Among residents enforcing smoke-free home rules (76%, overall), 50% reported SHS incursions into their unit. Only 23% reported living in a smoke-free building; 56% of those living in smoking-allowable buildings reported preferences towards smoke-free building policies. Among market-rate housing residents, smoke-free home (OR=4.18) and building (OR=2.26) rules were significantly higher when children were present. Smoke-free building rules reduced the odds of SHS incursions among market-rate housing residents (OR=0.50), but no association was observed among subsidised housing residents. Non-smoking subsidised housing residents exhibited stronger preferences for smoke-free policies compared with those in market-rate housing. DISCUSSION: Smoke-free home rules may not protect MUH residents from SHS exposures, particularly in subsidised MUH. Although strong preferences towards smoke-free policies were present overall, subsidised MUH residents may have fewer alternative smoke-free housing options available. Therefore, all publicly funded housing should be smoke free to protect these vulnerable populations. However, continued efforts to encourage privately owned MUH operators to adopt smoke-free policies are also necessary. SN - 1468-3318 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28302920/Attitudes_and_experiences_with_secondhand_smoke_and_smoke_free_policies_among_subsidised_and_market_rate_multiunit_housing_residents_living_in_six_diverse_communities_in_the_USA_ L2 - https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/lookup/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=28302920 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -