| Literature DB >> 24831285 |
Whitney L Webber1, Brianna van Erp2, Pamela Stoddard2, Janice Y Tsoh3.
Abstract
Because smoking rates are high among Vietnamese men, we used data from the 2007-2008 California Vietnamese Adult Tobacco Use Survey to estimate secondhand smoke exposure and associated risk factors among Vietnamese nonsmokers. Thirty percent of nonsmokers were exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS) at home, 8% at work, 52% in bars, and 67% on a college campus. At home, odds of SHS exposure were greater for women than for men and for adults aged less than 40 years than for older adults. Odds of SHS exposure were higher for former smokers at work (among employed men) and among men when in bars. Future interventions should consider sex, age, and smoking history in efforts to prevent SHS exposure among Vietnamese adults.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24831285 PMCID: PMC4023674 DOI: 10.5888/pcd11.130327
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prev Chronic Dis ISSN: 1545-1151 Impact factor: 2.830
Characteristics of Vietnamese Adult Nonsmokers, California Vietnamese Adult Tobacco Use Survey, 2007–2008 (unweighted n = 1,887)
| Characteristic | % (unweighted n) |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Female | 58 (1,066) |
| Male | 43 (821) |
|
| |
| <40 | 53 (424) |
| ≥40 | 48 (1,447) |
|
| |
| High school graduate or less | 43 (944) |
| Some college or higher | 57 (922) |
|
| |
| Poorly or not at all | 39 (479) |
| So-so | 40 (812) |
| Fluently or well | 21 (583) |
|
| |
| <10 years | 23 (276) |
| ≥10 years | 77 (1,491) |
|
| |
| No children | 39 (873) |
| ≥1 children | 61 (1,012) |
|
| |
| Never smoker | 86 (1,500) |
| Former smoker | 15 (387) |
|
| |
| Not knowledgeable | 20 (347) |
| Knowledgeable | 80 (1,529) |
|
| |
| Disapprove or are unsure of ban | 11 (170) |
| Favor smoking ban in bars | 90 (1,714) |
|
| |
| Home | 30 (466) |
| Work | 8 (48) |
| Bars | 52 (140) |
| College | 67 (111) |
Percentages are weighted. Numbers are unweighted. Some strata do not sum to 1,887 because of missing data. Some percentages may exceed 100 because of rounding.
Computed based on individuals who reported exposure in the setting of interest. For example, the percentage of respondents reporting secondhand smoke exposure at work was computed among participants who were currently employed.
Because of limited secondhand smoke exposure among women, only men were included in the workplace secondhand smoke variable.
Odds of Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Vietnamese Adults Nonsmokers, California Vietnamese Adult Tobacco Use Survey, 2007–2008
| Characteristic | Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home (n = 1,575) | Work | Bars (n = 229) | College (n = 145) | |
|
| ||||
| Male | 1 [Reference] | |||
| Female | 1.85 (1.24–2.75) | NA | 0.42 (0.18–0.95) | 1.10 (0.45–2.71) |
|
| ||||
| <40 | 1 [Reference] | |||
| ≥40 | 0.69 (0.50–0.96) | 1.82 (0.71–4.68) | 0.82 (0.42–1.60) | 0.88 (0.35–2.18) |
|
| ||||
| High school graduate or less | 1 [Reference] | |||
| Some college or higher | 1.02 (0.69–1.49) | 0.59 (0.27–1.30) | 1.29 (0.44–3.83) | 0.65 (0.23–1.82) |
|
| ||||
| Poorly or not at all | 1 [Reference] | |||
| So-so | 0.92 (0.63–1.33) | 1.70 (0.53–5.47) | 0.71 (0.22–2.34) | 1.49 (0.23–9.49) |
| Fluently or well | 1.06 (0.62–1.80) | 2.15 (0.62–7.44) | 0.40 (0.10–1.64) | 2.04 (0.31–13.4) |
|
| ||||
| <10 years | 1 [Reference] | |||
| ≥10 years or more | 0.74 (0.49–1.13) | 0.42 (0.14–1.23) | 0.58 (0.21–1.62) | 1.13 (0.46–2.79) |
|
| ||||
| No children | 1 [Reference] | NA | NA | NA |
| ≥1 children | 0.82 (0.59–1.14) | |||
|
| ||||
| Never smoker | 1 [Reference] | |||
| Former smoker | 1.03 (0.66–1.60) | 3.04 (1.27–7.25) | 1.56 (0.57–4.27) | 0.84 (0.15–4.74) |
|
| ||||
| Not knowledgeable | 1 [Reference] | |||
| Knowledgeable | 0.84 (0.57–1.23) | 0.71 (0.29–1.75) | 1.14 (0.49–2.64) | 1.00 (0.35–2.88) |
|
| ||||
| Disapprove or are unsure of ban | NA | NA | 1 [Reference] | NA |
| Favor smoking ban in bars | 0.80 (0.18–3.49) | |||
Abbreviation: NA, not applicable.
Regression model includes men only.
P < .01.
P < .05.
Children in the home and secondhand smoke attitudes are included only in regression models for the home and bars, respectively.