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

Abstract 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 thos...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	European journal of public health 2023-10, Vol.33 (5), p.864-871
Main Authors:	Berg, Carla J, Dekanosidze, Ana, Hayrumyan, Varduhi, LoParco, Cassidy R, Torosyan, Arevik, Grigoryan, Lilit, Bazarchyan, Alexander, Haardörfer, Regine, Kegler, Michelle C
Format:	Article
Language:	eng
Subjects:	Adult Adults Armenia Barriers Behavior Child Correlation Female Georgia Housing Humans Male Motivation Multiple dwellings No-smoking policies Passive smoking Policy implementation Smoke Smoke-Free Policy Smoking Tobacco smoke Tobacco Smoke Pollution - prevention & control
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	Abstract 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.
ISSN:	1101-1262 1464-360X