4.2 Article

Prevalence of smoking and second-hand smoke exposure: differences between Spanish and immigrant pregnant women

期刊

GACETA SANITARIA
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 138-144

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.07.015

关键词

Women; Smoking; Pregnant; Immigrant; Second-hand smoke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To identify differences in the prevalence of smoking and second-hand smoke exposure between Spanish and immigrant pregnant women, as well as the factors associated with continued smoking during pregnancy. Methods: An epidemiologic cross-sectional study was carried out in women attended at delivery in Zaragoza (Spain). A smoking questionnaire was used to collect the following variables: the women's and partners' sociodemographic factors and smoking behavior, second-hand smoke exposure and perception of the risks of this exposure. Results: We included 2440 women (35% immigrants). A total of 31.1% smoked before becoming pregnant and 18.2% during pregnancy, with significant differences between Spanish and immigrant women (21.9% versus 8.7%; p < 0.001). Immigrant women lived with a greater number of smokers, smoked more inside the home, were exposed to second-hand smoke for a greater number of hours per day, avoided public places with second-hand smoke less, and more often worked in bars and restaurants. The following factors were associated with smoking during pregnancy: being Spanish, smoking a greater number of cigarettes before pregnancy, being exposed to second-hand smoke at home for a greater number of hours, having a low perception of risks and having a partner with lower educational attainment. Conclusions: The prevalence of smoking is higher among Spanish pregnant women than immigrant women, although the immigrant population is more exposed to second-hand smoke at home and at work. There are socio-cultural differences that should be taken into account when carrying out interventions in women of reproductive age. (C) 2011 SESPAS. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L. 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

4.2
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