INTRODUCTION: Mandatory smoke-free policies in subsidized, multiunit housing (MUH) may decrease secondhand smoke exposure in households with the highest rates of exposure. Ideally, policies should be based on a strong understanding of factors affecting support for smoke-free policies in the target population to maximize effectiveness. METHODS: A face-to-face survey was conducted from August to October 2011 using a stratified random sample of private subsidized housing units in Columbus, OH, without an existing smoke-free policy (n = 301, 64% response rate). Lease holders were asked to report individual, social, and environmental factors hypothesized to be related to support for smoke-free policies. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify factors independently associated with policy support. RESULTS: Most tenants supported smoke-free policies in common areas (82.7%), half supported policies inside units (54.5%), and one third supported a ban outside the building (36.3%). Support for smoke-free policies in units and outdoors was more common among nonsmokers than smokers (71.5% vs. 35.7%, p < .001 and 46.2% vs. 25.4%, p < .001, respectively). Several individual and social, but no environmental, factors were independently associated with policy support. Smokers who intended to quit within 6 months or less were more likely than other smokers to support in-unit policies (45.3% vs. 21.1%; p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of subsidized MUH tenants supported smoke-free policies inside their units. Strategies to address individual- and social-level barriers to behavior change should be implemented in parallel with smoke-free policies. Policies should be evaluated with objective measures to determine their effectiveness.
INTRODUCTION: Mandatory smoke-free policies in subsidized, multiunit housing (MUH) may decrease secondhand smoke exposure in households with the highest rates of exposure. Ideally, policies should be based on a strong understanding of factors affecting support for smoke-free policies in the target population to maximize effectiveness. METHODS: A face-to-face survey was conducted from August to October 2011 using a stratified random sample of private subsidized housing units in Columbus, OH, without an existing smoke-free policy (n = 301, 64% response rate). Lease holders were asked to report individual, social, and environmental factors hypothesized to be related to support for smoke-free policies. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify factors independently associated with policy support. RESULTS: Most tenants supported smoke-free policies in common areas (82.7%), half supported policies inside units (54.5%), and one third supported a ban outside the building (36.3%). Support for smoke-free policies in units and outdoors was more common among nonsmokers than smokers (71.5% vs. 35.7%, p < .001 and 46.2% vs. 25.4%, p < .001, respectively). Several individual and social, but no environmental, factors were independently associated with policy support. Smokers who intended to quit within 6 months or less were more likely than other smokers to support in-unit policies (45.3% vs. 21.1%; p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of subsidized MUH tenants supported smoke-free policies inside their units. Strategies to address individual- and social-level barriers to behavior change should be implemented in parallel with smoke-free policies. Policies should be evaluated with objective measures to determine their effectiveness.
Authors: G T Fong; A Hyland; R Borland; D Hammond; G Hastings; A McNeill; S Anderson; K M Cummings; S Allwright; M Mulcahy; F Howell; L Clancy; M E Thompson; G Connolly; P Driezen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Barbara A Pizacani; Diane P Martin; Michael J Stark; Thomas D Koepsell; Beti Thompson; Paula Diehr Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: N E Klepeis; W C Nelson; W R Ott; J P Robinson; A M Tsang; P Switzer; J V Behar; S C Hern; W H Engelmann Journal: J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol Date: 2001 May-Jun
Authors: Timothy B Baker; Megan E Piper; Danielle E McCarthy; Daniel M Bolt; Stevens S Smith; Su-Young Kim; Suzanne Colby; David Conti; Gary A Giovino; Dorothy Hatsukami; Andrew Hyland; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Raymond Niaura; Kenneth A Perkins; Benjamin A Toll Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Gary G Bennett; Lorna H McNeill; Kathleen Y Wolin; Dustin T Duncan; Elaine Puleo; Karen M Emmons Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Shannon M Farley; Kevin R J Schroth; Christine Johnson Curtis; Sonia Angell Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Amy Y Hafez; Mariaelena Gonzalez; Margarete C Kulik; Maya Vijayaraghavan; Stanton A Glantz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Karen M Wilson; Michelle Torok; Robert McMillen; Susanne Tanski; Jonathan D Klein; Jonathan P Winickoff Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 9.308