4.5 Article

Parental receptivity to child biomarker testing for tobacco smoke exposure: A qualitative study

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 98, 期 11, 页码 1439-1445

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.023

关键词

Tobacco smoke exposure; Secondhand smoke; Biomarker testing; Parental attitudes; Qualitative methods; Thematic analysis; Parental education and counseling

资金

  1. Flight Attendants' Medical Research Institute (FAMRI) FAMRI Award [072086_YCSA]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Widespread tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) of children suggests that parents may be unaware of their children's exposure. Biomarkers demonstrate exposure and may motivate behavior change, but their acceptability is not well understood. Methods: Sixty-five in-depth interviews were conducted with parents of young children, in smoking families in central Israel. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Consent to testing was associated with desire for information, for reassurance or to motivate change, and with concerns for long-term health, taking responsibility for one's child, and trust in research. Opposition to testing was associated with preference to avoid knowledge, reluctance to cause short-term discomfort, perceived powerlessness, and mistrust of research. Most parents expressed willingness to allow measurement by urine (83%), hair (88%), or saliva (93%), but not blood samples (43%); and believed that test results could motivate behavior change. Conclusions: Parents were receptive to non-invasive child biomarker testing. Biomarker information could help persuade parents who smoke that their children need protection. Practice implications: Biomarker testing of children in smoking families is an acceptable and promising tool for education, counseling, and motivation of parents to protect their children from TSE. Additionally, biomarker testing allows objective assessment of population-level child TSE. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据