Children, smoking households and exposure to second-hand smoke in the home in rural Australia: analysis of a national cross-sectional survey.

Jo M Longman, Megan E Passey
Author Information
  1. Jo M Longman: University Centre for Rural Health, University of Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This paper aimed to explore the association between rurality and (1) household smoking status and (2) home second-hand smoke exposure, in households with children aged 0-14 years.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING: Households across Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: Households across the country were randomly selected to provide a nationally representative sample. Respondents were persons aged 12 years or older in each household who were next going to celebrate their birthday.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Household smoking status and smoking inside the home.
METHODOLOGY: The 2010 Australian National Drug Strategy Household survey data were analysed to explore the prevalence of household smoking and home second-hand smoke exposure in rural and urban households with children. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the association of rurality with household smoking and with home second-hand smoke exposure, controlling for potential confounders.
RESULTS: Households with children were more likely to be smoking households (35.4%, 95% CI 34.2% to 36.5%) than households without children (32.1%, 95% CI 31.3% to 32.8%). Both household smoking (43.6% (95% CI 41.5% to 45.7%) vs 31.4% (95% CI 30.0% to 32.8%)) and home second-hand smoke exposure (8.0% (95% CI 6.8% to 9.1%) vs 5.2% (95% CI 4.5% to 5.8%)) were significantly more common for rural children. In multivariate analyses controlling for confounding factors, rurality remained associated with smoking households (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.37), whereas it did not remain associated with children's home second-hand smoke exposure (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.35). Larger household size, low socioeconomic status and being a single-parent household were the main drivers of home second-hand smoke exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of smoking households with children, and the number of children regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in their homes remain important public health concerns. Smoking cessation support and tobacco control policies might benefit from targeting larger and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged households including single-parent households.

Keywords

References

  1. Tob Control. 2013 Sep;22(5):344-8 [PMID: 22467710]
  2. Nicotine Tob Res. 2003 Aug;5(4):597-602 [PMID: 12959798]
  3. Health Place. 2007 Sep;13(3):702-12 [PMID: 17182269]
  4. Tob Control. 2010 Jun;19(3):201-5 [PMID: 20501492]
  5. Rural Remote Health. 2010 Oct-Dec;10(4):1564 [PMID: 21219082]
  6. Eur J Public Health. 2009 Jan;19(1):52-8 [PMID: 19033356]
  7. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001 Apr;25(2):132-7 [PMID: 11357908]
  8. Indoor Air. 2008 Jun;18(3):202-8 [PMID: 18336533]
  9. Tob Control. 2009 Dec;18(6):491-5 [PMID: 19748885]
  10. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011 Jun;13(6):479-86 [PMID: 21447837]
  11. J Rural Health. 2004 Winter;20(1):7-16 [PMID: 14964923]
  12. Tob Control. 1999 Autumn;8(3):266-71 [PMID: 10599570]
  13. Biomed Environ Sci. 2010 Dec;23(6):430-6 [PMID: 21315240]
  14. Can J Public Health. 2010 Jan-Feb;101(1):32-5 [PMID: 20364535]
  15. Prev Med. 2012 Mar-Apr;54(3-4):242-6 [PMID: 22245269]
  16. J Paediatr Child Health. 2009 Apr;45(4):224-7 [PMID: 19426379]
  17. Tob Control. 2006 Jun;15 Suppl 3:iii42-50 [PMID: 16754946]
  18. Pediatrics. 2004 Apr;113(4):e291-5 [PMID: 15060255]
  19. Health Place. 2007 Dec;13(4):894-903 [PMID: 17499542]
  20. Aust J Rural Health. 2010 Feb;18(1):16-24 [PMID: 20136810]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0smokingsmokehouseholdshomesecond-hand95%CIhouseholdexposurechildren18%exploreruralitystatusHouseholdsrural5%32associationagedyearsacrossAustraliaHouseholdsurveycontrolling354%2%1%31vs0%5associatedOR07remainsingle-parentChildrenOBJECTIVES:paperaimed20-14DESIGN:Cross-sectionalstudySETTING:PARTICIPANTS:countryrandomlyselectedprovidenationallyrepresentativesampleRespondentspersons12oldernextgoingcelebratebirthdayPRIMARYOUTCOMEMEASURES:insideMETHODOLOGY:2010AustralianNationalDrugStrategydataanalysedprevalenceurbanMultivariablelogisticregressionusedpotentialconfoundersRESULTS:likely3436without3%436%41457%308694significantlycommonmultivariateanalysesconfoundingfactorsremained2137whereaschildren's085LargersizelowsocioeconomicmaindriversCONCLUSIONS:proportionnumberregularlyexposedhomesimportantpublichealthconcernsSmokingcessationsupporttobaccocontrolpoliciesmightbenefittargetinglargerand/orsocioeconomicallydisadvantagedincludingAustralia:analysisnationalcross-sectionalEnvironmentalTobaccoSmokeRuralSecondhand

Similar Articles

Cited By