Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 855–865 | Cite as

Second-hand smoke exposure in homes and in cars among Canadian youth: current prevalence, beliefs about exposure, and changes between 2004 and 2006

  • Scott T. Leatherdale
  • Rashid Ahmed
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The present study examines second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure and the beliefs youth have about being exposed to SHS in their home and in cars and explores changes in exposure and beliefs over time.

Methods

Nationally representative data from the 2006 Youth Smoking Survey (YSS) were used to examine youth exposure to smoking and beliefs about smoking in the home and car among 71,003 Canadian youth in grades 5–12. Gender-specific logistic regression models were conducted to examine if being exposed to smoking at home or in the car were associated with the beliefs youth have about either smoking around kids at home or smoking around kids in cars.

Results

In 2006, 22.1% of youth in grades 5–12 were exposed to smoking in their home on a daily or almost daily basis and 28.1% were exposed to smoking while riding in a car at least once in the previous week. The majority of youth reported that they do not think smoking should be allowed around kids at home (88.3%) or in cars (88.4%). Youth exposed to smoking in the home or in cars reported missing substantially more days of school in the previous month because of their health. Among both male and female youth, being an ever smoker, living in a house where someone smokes inside daily, and having ridden in a car with someone who was smoking cigarettes in the past seven days were all associated with being more likely to report that smoking should not be allowed around kids at home or in cars. Compared to their male counterparts, female youth with at least one parent who smokes were more likely to report that smoking should not be allowed around kids at home or in cars. As rates of SHS exposure in the home and car decreased between 2004 and 2006, the prevalence of youth who reported that they do not think smoking should be allowed around kids at home or in cars also decreased over the same period of time.

Conclusions

These results highlight that Canadian youth are frequently exposed to SHS in their homes and in cars despite the fact that the vast majority of youth do not think smoking should be allowed around kids in those locations. Considering the health and social consequences associated with SHS exposure, it may be a timely opportunity to move forward with programs and policies designed to prevent individuals from smoking around youth in these locations.

Keywords

Youth Secondhand smoke Policy Vehicle/car Household/home Prevention 

Notes

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Health Canada, Cancer Care Ontario, and the Population Health Research Group for providing support for this project. Dr. Leatherdale is a Cancer Care Ontario Research Chair in Population Studies. The 2006–2007 YSS is a product of the pan-Canadian capacity building project funded through a contribution agreement between Health Canada and the Centre for Behavioural Research and Program Evaluation Group at the University of Waterloo. This pan-Canadian consortium included Canadian tobacco control researchers from all provinces and provided training opportunities for university students at all levels, encouraging their involvement and growth in the field of tobacco control research.

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005) Third national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bearer CF (2005) Environmental health hazards: how children are different from adults. Future Child 5:11–26. doi: 10.2307/1602354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2006) The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and HealthGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    California Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Proposed identification of environmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant. Part: health effects. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (2004) IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans: tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking, vol 83. International Agency for Research on Cancer, LyonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization (1999) International consultation on environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and child health. Consultation report, World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bettcher DW, Peruga A, Fishburn B et al (2007) Exposure to secondhand smoke among students aged 13–15 years—worldwide, 2000–2007. MMWR 56:497–500Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mannino DM, Siegel M, Husten C et al (1996) Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and health effects in children: results from the 1991 National Health Interview Survey. Tob Control 5:13–18. doi: 10.1136/tc.5.1.13 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization (2007) Only 100% smoke-free environments adequately protect from dangers of second-hand smoke. New WHO policy recommendations point to extensive evidence. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Health Canada (2002) The facts: second-hand smoke and youth. Health Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ashley MJ, Ferrence R (1998) Reducing children’s exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in homes: issues and strategies. Tob Control 7:61–65. doi: 10.1136/tc.7.1.61 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shields M (2007) Smoking-prevalence, bans and exposure to second-hand smoke. Health Rep 18:67–85PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leatherdale ST, Smith P, Ahmed R (2008) Youth exposure to smoking in the home and in cars: how often does it happen and what do youth think about it? Tob Control 17:86–92. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.022475 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sendzik T, Fong GT, Travers MJ, Hyland A (2008) An experimental investigation of tobacco smoke pollution in cars. Ontario Tobacco research Unit Special Report, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ontario Medical Association (2005) Exposure to secondhand smoke: are we protecting our kids? A position paper by the Ontario Medical Association. Ontario Medical Association, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McMillen RC, Winickoff JP, Klein JD, Weitzman M (2003) US adult attitudes and practices regarding smoking restrictions and child exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: changes in the social climate from 2000–2001. Pediatrics 112:e55–e60. doi: 10.1542/peds.112.1.e55 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Health Canada (2004) Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS): annual results 2003. Tobacco Control Program, Health Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Health Canada (2008) 2006-07 Youth Smoking Survey. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Health Canada (2007) 2004-05 Youth Smoking Survey. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    SAS Institute Inc (2001) The SAS System for Windows. SAS Institute Inc, CaryGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Unger JB, Rohrbach A, Howard KA, Cruz TB, Johnson CA, Chen X (1999) Attitudes toward anti-tobacco policy among California youth: associations with smoking status, psychosocial variables, and advocacy actions. Health Educ Res 14:751–763. doi: 10.1093/her/14.6.751 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kegler MC, Escoffery C, Butler S (2008) A qualitative study on establishing and enforcing smoking rules in family cars. Nicotine Tob Res 10:493–497. doi: 10.1080/14622200801901963 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Health Canada (2006) Make your home and car smoke-free: a guide to protecting your family from second-hand smoke. Health Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trosclair A, Babb S, Murphy-Hoefer R et al (2007) State-specific prevalence of smoke-free home rules—United States, 1992-2003. MMWR 56:501–504Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norman GJ, Ribisl KM, Howard-Pitney B, Howard KA (1999) Smoking bans in the home and car: do those who really need them have them? Prev Med 29:582–589. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pizacani BA, Martin DP, Stark MJ, Koepsell TD, Thompson B, Diehr P (2003) Household smoking bans: which households have them and do they work? Prev Med 36:99–107. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2002.1123 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gonzales M, Malcoe LH, Kegler MC, Espinoza J (2006) Prevalence and predictors of home and automobile smoking bans and child environmental tobacco smoke exposure: a cross-sectional study of U.S.- and Mexico-born Hispanic women with young children. BMC Public Health 6:265. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-6-265 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Phillips R, Amos A, Ritchie D, Cunningham-Burley S, Martin C (2007) Smoking in the home after the smoke-free legislation in Scotland: qualitative study. BMJ 15:553–557. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39301.497593.55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sussman S, Dent C, Burton D et al (2001) School-based tobacco use prevention and cessation: where are we going? Am J Health Behav 25:191–199PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Population Studies and SurveillanceCancer Care OntarioTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Health Studies and GerontologyUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Population Health Research GroupUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations