Changes in child exposure to secondhand smoke after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Wales: a repeated cross-sectional study

Holliday, Jo C.; Moore, Graham F.; Moore, Laurence A. R.
January 2009
BMC Public Health;2009, Vol. 9 Issue 1, p430
Academic Journal
Background: Smoke-free legislation was introduced in Wales in April 2007. In response to concerns regarding potential displacement of smoking into the home following legislation, this study assessed changes in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure amongst non-smoking children. Methods: Approximately 1,750 year 6 (aged 10-11) children from 75 Welsh primary schools were included in cross-sectional surveys immediately pre-legislation and one year later. Participants completed self-report questionnaires and provided saliva samples for cotinine assay. Regression analyses assessed the impact of legislation on children's SHS exposure at the population level, and amongst subgroups defined by parental figures who smoke within the home. Results: Geometric mean salivary cotinine concentrations were 0.17 ng/ml (95% CI 0.15,0.20) prelegislation and 0.15 ng/ml (95% CI 0.13,0.17), post-legislation, although this change was not statistically significant. Significant movement was however observed from the middle (0.10-0.50 ng/ ml) to lower tertile, though not from the higher end (>0.51 ng/ml) to the middle. Reported exposure to SHS was greatest within the home. Home-based exposure did not change significantly post-legislation. Reported exposure in cafés or restaurants, buses and trains, and indoor leisure facilities fell significantly. The proportion of children reporting that parent figures smoked in the home declined (P = 0.03), with children with no parent figures who smoke in the home significantly more likely to provide saliva with cotinine concentrations of <0.10 ng/ml post-legislation. Amongst children with no parent figures who smoke in the home, the likelihood of "not knowing" or "never" being in a place where people were smoking increased post-legislation. Conclusion: Smoke-free legislation in Wales did not increase SHS exposure in homes of children aged 10-11. Reported SHS exposure in public places fell significantly. The home remained the main source of children's SHS exposure. The legislation was associated with an unexpected reduction in cotinine levels among children with lower SHS exposure pre-legislation. The findings indicate positive rather than harmful effects of legislation on children's SHS exposure, but highlight the need for further action to protect those children most exposed to SHS.


Related Articles

  • Law change on smoking in cars would protect children. Wallis, Lynne // Nursing Standard;7/27/2011, Vol. 25 Issue 47, p28 

    In this article the author discusses a proposed law in Great Britain which would ban cigarette smoking in cars which contain children and expresses support for the proposed law, suggesting that it will improve the health of children.

  • Should smoking in outside public spaces be banned? YES. Thomson, George; Wilson, Nick; Edwards, Richard; Woodward, Alistair // BMJ: British Medical Journal (Overseas & Retired Doctors Edition;1/10/2009, p76 

    In this article the authors react to the question of whether smoking should be banned in outdoor public spaces. They suggests that it should because such a ban would prevent children from becoming smokers. They argue that while it is not clear whether outdoor smoke free areas reduce smoking...

  • Comprehensive smoke-free legislation and displacement of smoking into the homes of young children in Hong Kong.  // Tobacco Control;Apr2010, Vol. 19 Issue 2, p129 

    The article studies the effects of a 2007 comprehensive smoke-free legislation on children's exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in Hong Kong, China. According to the study, exposure to SHS at home and outside the home increased among primary school students post-legislation. The study also found...

  • THE RIGHT TO BREATH CLEAN AIR. Smith, Sandy // Occupational Hazards;Nov2007, Vol. 69 Issue 11, p6 

    The article promotes the nationwide implementation of smoke-free laws in the U.S. Minnesota implemented in November 2007 its comprehensive workplace smoke-free law called Freedom to Breath Act. According to U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona, second-hand smoking is a serious health hazard that...

  • Smoke-free legislation reduces exposure in children. Gupta, Vandana // Thorax;Mar2008, Vol. 63 Issue 3, p227 

    The article provides information about the child exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (CHETS) study that examined the effect of the change in legislation in Scotland on the status of children's exposure to second-hand smoke. Surveys were performed by primary school children in the same...

  • Childhood vaccinations. West, Edda // Alive: Canada's Natural Health & Wellness Magazine;Sep2004, Issue 263, p72 

    Focuses on the issue of forced vaccinations of school children in Canada Absence of mandatory vaccination laws in the country; Intensity of the degree of coercion in provinces without legislated vaccine exemptions; Keys to protecting children from forced vaccination.

  • Michigan no smoking law to take effect May 1. Fries, Richard // Grand Rapids Business Journal;3/22/2010, Vol. 28 Issue 12, p13 

    The article reports on House Bill 4377 amending Michigan's Public Health Code which would take effect on May 1, 2010.

  • Is the smoking ban justifed? Grayling, A. C. // Prospect;Jan2008, Issue 142, p8 

    The author reflects on the public policy debate in Great Britain concerning bans on smoking behavior. Questions are raised over the definition of personal liberty and its relation to the harm of others. The author suggests that anti-smoking legislation in public spaces is justified because it...

  • Where there's smoke, there's an anti-smoking crusader. Sares, Ted // New Hampshire Business Review;4/14/2006, Vol. 28 Issue 8, p25 

    The article comments on the proposed smoking ban on public places in New Hampshire. The author believes that local smoking bans now rolling across the nation may have less to do with protecting people from the supposed threat of "secondhand" smoke than they do with spreading the insidious...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics