4.5 Article

Household Smoking Restrictions Related to Secondhand Smoke Exposure in Guangdong, China: A Population Representative Survey

Journal

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 390-396

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntt162

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Guangdong Health Bureau
  2. Guangdong Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Guangzhou, China [09-12-06.8]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

China has a higher household secondhand smoke exposure rate than other countries. This study aims to estimate the prevalence rate of households implementing smoking bans in Guangdong and to identify factors correlated with household smoking bans. A cross-sectional, stratified random cluster sampling survey was conducted in Guangdong in 2010. A total of 2,114 adults aged 15 and older completed the face-to-face interviews with a response rate of 70%. The survey employed an adapted and validated questionnaire from the China Global Adult Tobacco Survey. Household smoking policy was divided into 3 groups: full ban, partial ban, and no ban. A multiple logistic regression model was employed to explore factors related to a full household smoking ban. The survey found 14.2% of respondents reported a full ban, 23.6% reported a partial ban, and 62.2% reported no ban of smoking at home. Current smoking status was the strongest predictor for less restrictive household smoking policies (odds ratio [OR] 4.9, 95% CI 2.6348.999). Our study suggested that people with a high level of education were more likely to implement a full household smoking ban (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.3888.178). Additionally, urban residents were significantly more likely to report a full household smoking ban than rural residents (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.2022.322). Household smoking bans were not sufficiently established in Guangdong, China. Intensified efforts were called to promote home smoking bans, especially for those with a lower education level, with lower income, and living in rural areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available