4.5 Review

Thirdhand Smoke Knowledge, Beliefs and Behaviors among Parents and Families: A Systematic Review

Journal

HEALTHCARE
Volume 11, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11172403

Keywords

thirdhand smoke; parental belief; behaviors; knowledge; child health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review aimed to analyze studies on knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding thirdhand smoke (THS) among parents, families, and caregivers. The results showed that parental awareness of THS varied, but it did not always translate into smoking bans or healthy behaviors.
Families play a primary role in protecting children. Thirdhand smoke (THS) is an underestimated public health issue, and health effects correlated to its exposition are emerging. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze papers focusing on knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding THS among parents, families, and caregivers, published until May 2022 on MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Critical appraisal of the included studies was conducted by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Out of the 97 articles, 8 were included in this review (two from the USA, one from Europe, and five from Asia). Although there were no restrictions on the date of publication, all the articles were published in the last 10 years, underlining that THS is an emerging concept. They were characterized by relevant heterogeneity in the study design and assessment tools. The results showed that percentages of parents who believed that THS is harmful ranged from 42.4% to 91%, but parental awareness was not always associated with the adoption of a home- and car-smoking ban or healthy behaviors. Further research is needed to understand the resistance and problems faced by parents who are aware of THS risks but unable to improve good practices.

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