Association between objective measures and parent-reported
measures of child tobacco smoke exposure: A secondary data
analysis of four trials

Bitan, Michal; Steinberg, David M.; Wilson, Sandra R.; Kalkbrenner, Amy E.; Lanphear, Bruce P.; Hovell, Melbourne F.; Gamliel, Vicki Myers; Rosen, Laura

doi:10.18332/tid/150296

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whilst self-report data on smoking in the home provides useful information (see [ 36 ] for discussion regarding the reasons to collect it), it is sometimes unreliable and/or systematically biased towards under-reporting as a result of the influence of attitudes and social norms [ 28 ]. Even when individuals report home smoking rules and their associated smoking behaviours reliably, the research questions asked of them may not be sufficiently detailed to capture all scenarios which result in increased levels of exposure [ 36 ]. For example, one possible reason for discrepancies observed is smoking by other adult household members in the home [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of nicotine replacement therapy to reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in the home: a qualitative pilot study involving local community pharmacies

Howell,

McBurney,

Di Tano

et al. 2023

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In Scotland, and in several other countries, most second-hand smoke exposure now occurs in low-income households, where housing constraints and sole parenting often make it harder to create a smoke-free home. This pilot study provided people who smoke with a free 12-week supply of nicotine replacement therapy through local community pharmacies to reduce smoking indoors. Methods Twenty-five parents/caregivers who smoked in the home and cared for children at least weekly were recruited via Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic. Air quality (PM2.5) was monitored in participant homes for seven days before their first pharmacy visit and 12 weeks later. Qualitative interviews (N = 14) were conducted with 13 participants who completed the study and one who withdrew part-way through. The interviews explored views/experiences of using nicotine replacement therapy to help create a smoke-free home. Another participant took part in a shorter telephone discussion at their request, with detailed notes taken by the interviewer, because of their speech disorder. Results Three participants reported smoking outdoors only, one of whom subsequently quit smoking. Six participants reported reduced cigarette consumption by 50% in the home, four reported no (sustained) reduction and one reported increased smoking indoors. Self-reported outcomes were not always consistent with PM2.5 readings. Participants’ experiences of accessing nicotine replacement therapy through community pharmacies varied. Some suggested ongoing support to use nicotine replacement products could better assist behavioural change, and that access could be streamlined by posting products to the home. Several suggested that focusing on changing home smoking behaviours using nicotine replacement therapy might facilitate a future quit attempt. Conclusion Access to free nicotine replacement therapy for temporary use indoors may support some people who smoke to reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke. Our findings confirm the need to modify the intervention before undertaking a definitive trial to assess the effectiveness of this approach. This work is now underway.

show abstract