Effect of parental smoking on their children’s urine cotinine level in Korea: A population-based study

Abstract

Background Children may be exposed to tobacco products in multiple ways if their parents smoke. The risks of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) are well known. This study aimed to investigate the association between parental smoking and the children’s cotinine level in relation to restricting home smoking, in Korea. Methods Using the Korea National Health and Nutrition Health Examination Survey data from 2014 to 2017, we analyzed urine cotinine data of parents and their non-smoking children (n = 1,403), in whose homes parents prohibited smoking. We performed linear regression analysis by adjusting age, sex, house type, and household income to determine if parent smoking was related to the urine cotinine concentration of their children. In addition, analysis of covariance and Tukey’s post-hoc tests were performed according to parent smoking pattern. Finding Children’s urine cotinine concentrations were positively associated with those of their parents. Children of smoking parents had a significantly higher urine cotinine concentration than that in the group where both parents are non-smokers (diff = 0.933, P < .0001); mothers-only smoker group (diff = 0.511, P = 0.042); and fathers-only smoker group (diff = 0.712, P < .0001). In the fathers-only smoker group, the urine cotinine concentration was significantly higher than that in the group where both parents were non-smoker (diff = 0.221, P < .0001), but not significantly different compared to the mothers-only smoker group (diff = - -0.201, P = 0.388). Children living in apartments were more likely to be exposed to smoking substances. Conclusion This study showed a correlation between parents’ and children’s urine cotinine concentrations, supporting the occurrence of home smoking exposure due to the parents’ smoking habit in Korea. Although avoiding indoor home smoking can decrease the children’s exposure to tobacco, there is a need to identify other ways of smoking exposure and ensure appropriate monitoring and enforcement of banning smoking in the home.

Association between parental smoking and child exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in Israel

“…We found that the variables associated with child exposure in the multivariable analysis were number of smokers in the household and maternal education. Our findings regarding the association of these variables with child ETS exposure are consistent with previous studies showing that parental smoking is the major predictor of children’s exposure to ETS [ 18 , 19 ]. Our finding that UC are positively correlated in parent–child pairs (in a subset of children in the study) is consistent with previous studies showing a correlation between parental and child UC in children of smoking parents [ 18 , 19 ].…”

“…Our findings regarding the association of these variables with child ETS exposure are consistent with previous studies showing that parental smoking is the major predictor of children’s exposure to ETS [ 18 , 19 ]. Our finding that UC are positively correlated in parent–child pairs (in a subset of children in the study) is consistent with previous studies showing a correlation between parental and child UC in children of smoking parents [ 18 , 19 ]. Of note, we found a significant positive correlation between parent and child UC, even though most (60) of the pairs were for non-smoking parents.…”

Impact of health risk factors on healthcare resource utilization, work-related outcomes and health-related quality of life of Australians: a population-based longitudinal data analysis

“…The latest official Australian report showed smoking prevalence was 11.6% in 2019, accounting for 7.8% of overall burden of disease ( 10 ). Smoking not only poses direct risks but also exposes children of the smokers to the dangers of passive smoking and therefore to the toxic residue known as third hand smoke ( 11 ). Despite a decrease in the prevalence of harmful drinking from 21 to 16.8% between 2001 and 2019, it still accounted for about 4.5% of the total disease burden in 2015 ( 12 , 13 ).…”