Family Rules About Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.

Pyle, Sara A.; Haddock, C. Keith; Hymowitz, Norman; Schwab, Joseph; Meshberg, Sarah

doi:10.1037/1091-7527.23.1.3

Cited by 18 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Exposure to SHS can be reduced by over 80% through the elimination of smoking in public spaces and Yet, in both pediatric and family practice offices, fewer than half of parents are asked about exposure to SHS in the home, and only one third of smoking parents are counseled about the risks of SHS exposure for children (Winickoff et al, 2003). Recent research has revealed that parents vary considerably on the rules for smoking in the household (Pyle, Haddock, Hymowitz, Schwab, & Meshberg, 2005) and typically do not intervene to avoid SHS exposure for their children in cars or on trains, where the toxins are as much as 23 times more concentrated. Even less is known about screening and counseling for SHS exposure for adults.…”

Section: Exposure To Shsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondhand smoke (SHS) deserves more than secondhand attention: Modifying the 5As model to include counseling to eliminate exposure.

Williams

2005

Families, Systems, & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Exposure To Shsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondhand smoke (SHS) deserves more than secondhand attention: Modifying the 5As model to include counseling to eliminate exposure.

Williams

2005

Families, Systems, & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Overall, approximately 60% of those surveyed by Pyle et al (2005) do not allow smoking in their house, 20% allow adults to smoke in certain rooms at certain times, and 55% request that adults smoke outside the house. There were important subgroup differences depending on ethnicity and whether there was a smoker in the house.…”

Section: Who Makes the Rules?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The focus of Pyle et al's (2005) report is on family rules that are established among adult family members as well as adults outside the household. Frequently, one thinks of rules being established between children and adults, with adults setting the rules.…”

Section: Who Makes the Rules?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Timely Opportunities for Families and Their Healthcare Providers: A Commentary on Pyle et al. (2005).

Fiese

2005

Families, Systems, & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary on S. A. Pyle, C. K. Haddock, N. Hymowitz, J. Schwab, and S. Meshberg (2005) addresses the complex nature of establishing family rules about exposure to tobacco smoke (ETS). Particular attention is paid to how family rules are established and the challenges in enforcing rules among adult family members. Findings are also discussed in terms of the limits of family rule making and the need for negotiation and conflict resolution. The compounding influence of socioeconomic status and parental education in monitoring ETS deserves serious attention in future research. Healthcare providers are urged to discuss family rules with their patients with an eye toward preventative interventions.Families are responsible for establishing a variety of rules: How much TV viewing is allowed, bedtime on school nights, curfews, when a child can have dessert, and who gets to sit in the front seat of the car on a long trip are but a few examples of everyday family rules. In their article, Pyle, Haddock, Hymowitz, Schwab, and Meshberg (2005) have brought to our attention the establishment of family rules about exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). The results of this study are important as well as somewhat disturbing in terms of the amount of exposure that occurs in households and family vehicles. As the authors pointed out, exposure to ETS is a public health problem of grand proportion. It threatens the health and well-being of children and adults at risk for respiratory illnesses and can also contribute to the development of disease. The establishment of rules about exposure to tobacco smoke is not a simple issue. The authors have added to a small but growing literature suggesting sociodemographic variations in exposure to tobacco smoke. Consistent with previous reports, lower levels of education and minority status were associated with greater exposure (Wamboldt et al., 2002). What Pyle et al.'s study adds is a description of the types of rules that families endorse. It also raises the issue of who makes the rules and examines the limits of family rule making. I address each issue in turn.

show abstract

“…10,16,[23][24][25] However, smoke-free policies are more prevalent among households with younger residents 10 and those that include a nonsmoking adult. 10,[24][25][26][27][28] Smokers whose families preferred they did not smoke were also more likely to have smoking restrictions at home. 10,29 In fact, previous research suggests that the factors most likely to influence the probability of restricted smoking among households with smoking residents include concern for the health of a nonsmoker and interest by another family member in the smoker's quitting, 10 rather than the smoker's desire to have a more successful quit attempt.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking Restrictions Among Households of Childhood and Young Adult Cancer Survivors: Implications for Tobacco Control Efforts

Tyc

Puleo²,

Emmons³

et al. 2013

Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This study assessed the prevalence of smoking restrictions among households of survivors of childhood and young adult cancer who smoke. It also examined the relationship between home smoking restrictions and motivation to quit smoking, as well as other smoking, psychosocial, and environmental factors. Methods: Participants included 374 smokers who were childhood or young adult cancer survivors (between the ages of 18 and 55 years) recruited from five cancer centers to participate in a randomized smoking cessation trial. Survivors completed baseline measures about the smoking restrictions in their households, their smoking behavior, and related psychological and environmental factors, which are the focus of the current manuscript. Results: Almost 54% of survivors reported that smoking was prohibited in their households. Living with a nonsmoking partner, having a strict smoking policy at work, and not being nicotine dependent all increased the likelihood of having a total home smoking ban. Participants who were older, smoked more cigarettes per day over the prior week, and received prior chemotherapy were less likely to reside in households that adopted total bans. Conclusion: Findings suggest that socio-environmental factors and current smoking behaviors are associated with complete smoking restrictions in the homes of survivors. These factors should be considered when communicating with survivors about the importance of establishing strict smoking policies in their private residences.

show abstract

Family Rules About Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke.

Cited by 18 publications

References 19 publications

Secondhand smoke (SHS) deserves more than secondhand attention: Modifying the 5As model to include counseling to eliminate exposure.

Secondhand smoke (SHS) deserves more than secondhand attention: Modifying the 5As model to include counseling to eliminate exposure.

Timely Opportunities for Families and Their Healthcare Providers: A Commentary on Pyle et al. (2005).

Smoking Restrictions Among Households of Childhood and Young Adult Cancer Survivors: Implications for Tobacco Control Efforts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About