|Health Factors:||Tobacco Use|
|Decision Makers:||Local Government State Government Grantmakers Healthcare Professionals & Advocates Nonprofit Leaders Public Health Professionals & Advocates|
|Population Reach:||20-49% of WI's population|
|Impact on Disparities:|
Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.
Secondhand smoke education informs smokers and non-smokers of the dangers of secondhand smoke. These efforts encourage smokers to smoke less in their homes and non-smokers to implement home smoking bans. Education can be delivered through counseling, health care programs, home visiting, informational materials, or media messages. Educational efforts may be implemented alone, combined with biological feedback (e.g., cotinine feedback), or delivered as part of a multi-component intervention.
There is mixed evidence about the effects of secondhand smoke education on tobacco use and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in the home. Educational interventions have been shown to reduce SHS exposure in some circumstances, but often appear to have no effect on exposure. Additional evidence is needed to confirm effects and understand which specific interventions are effective (Cochrane-Baxi 2014, Baxter 2011).
Intensive parental counseling and motivational interviewing have been shown to reduce children’s SHS exposure in some circumstances, but often have no effect on SHS exposure (Collins 2015, Cochrane-Baxi 2014, Baxter 2011). Home visits from counselors or coaches appear to reduce SHS in homes, though some tobacco smoke pollution remains (Rosen 2015). Selected interventions for families with infants and small children may also increase home smoking bans and family avoidance of SHS (Brown 2015).
Overall, less intensive interventions, such as brief advice or counseling for family and caregivers, do not appear to affect SHS exposure (Cochrane-Baxi 2014). However, select interventions, such as an Atlanta-based effort that includes three mailings and a coaching call, appear to increase home smoking bans and SHS exposure among both smokers and non-smokers, and families with and without children (Kegler 2015).
A study of asthma education and motivational interviewing for parents of premature infants in a Rochester, NY NICU suggests a combined approach may reduce infants’ exposure more than education alone, but differences were not sustained over the longer term (Blaakman 2015). Similarly, a study of families receiving a multi-component intervention to reduce SHS exposure among children undergoing treatment at a pediatric oncology hospital indicates that participating families were more likely to adopt a home smoking ban by three months than peer families; by 12 months both groups were equally likely to have a ban in place (Nicholson 2015).
* Journal subscription may be required for access.