Cargando…

Smoke-free home restrictions in Armenia and Georgia: motives, barriers and secondhand smoke reduction behaviors

BACKGROUND: Promoting smoke-free homes (SFHs) in Armenia and Georgia is timely given high smoking and secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) rates and recent national smoke-free policy implementation. This study examined theoretical predictors (e.g. motives, barriers) of SFH status, and among those withou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berg, Carla J, Dekanosidze, Ana, Hayrumyan, Varduhi, LoParco, Cassidy R, Torosyan, Arevik, Grigoryan, Lilit, Bazarchyan, Alexander, Haardörfer, Regine, Kegler, Michelle C
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10567255/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37500602
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad129
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Promoting smoke-free homes (SFHs) in Armenia and Georgia is timely given high smoking and secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) rates and recent national smoke-free policy implementation. This study examined theoretical predictors (e.g. motives, barriers) of SFH status, and among those without SFHs, past 3-month SFH attempts and intent to establish SFHs in the next 3 months. METHODS: Multilevel logistic regression analyzed these outcomes using 2022 survey data from 1467 adults (31.6% past-month smokers) in Armenia (n = 762) and Georgia (n = 705). Correlates of interest included SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives and barriers; models controlled for country, community, age, sex, smoking status and other smokers in the home. RESULTS: In this sample, 53.6% had SFHs (Armenia: 39.2%; Georgia: 69.2%). Among those without SFHs, one-fourth had partial restrictions, no smokers in the home and/or recent SFH attempts; 35.5% intended to establish SFHs; and ∼70% of multiunit housing residents supported smoke-free buildings. We documented common SHSe reduction behaviors (opening windows, limiting smoking areas), SFH motives (prevent smell, protect children/nonsmokers) and barriers (smokers’ resistance). Correlates of SFHs were being from Georgia, other smokers in the home, fewer SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives and fewer barriers. Among participants without SFHs, correlates of recent SFH attempts were other smokers in the home, greater SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives, and fewer barriers; correlates of SFH intentions were being female, greater SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives, and fewer barriers. CONCLUSIONS: SFH interventions should address motives, barriers and misperceptions regarding SHSe reduction behaviors. Moreover, smoke-free multiunit housing could have a great population impact.