Search

ABSTRACT. Objective. The home is the site of the most significant environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure for children. Surveys show that adults, including smokers, agree that smoking should be restricted in homes of smokers with children. However, in a national survey, only 12.5% of such homes are actually smoke-free. This study examined factors associated with home smoking restriction among inner-city smokers. Methods. A cross-sectional survey of 598 adult smokers who attended an inner-city community health center was conducted. Results. Home smoking restriction was reported by 38.2% of all smokers (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.6%-42.8%). Univariate analysis showed smoking restriction was positively associated with presence of children and of a nonsmoking adult partner in the home, intentional limiting of smoking, stages of change, and fewer number of cigarettes smoked daily. On multivariate analysis, home smoking restriction was more likely with the presence of a child (odds ratio: 2.63; 95% CI: 1.70-4.08) and a nonsmoking adult partner (odds ratio: 2.30; 95% CI: 1.32-4.02) in the home. Conclusions. The presence of children and of nonsmoking adults is associated with the practice of smoking restriction in the homes of inner-city smokers. These findings suggest that inner-city smokers are concerned about health effects of ETS on children. Health professionals should target nonsmoking adult members of households with children and smokers but no home smoking restriction and emphasize the health effects of ETS on children as a motivation for smoking parents to limit exposure and to quit smoking. Pediatrics 2002;109:224-249; home, smoking restriction, children, high-risk, inner city. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A community-based participatory approach requires that community members be involved in all phases of the research process. We describe three focus group studies with American Indians in Kansas and Missouri, using a newly developed method of conducting and analyzing focus groups with community input (72 focus groups, 519 participants). We conducted two needs assessment studies focused on barriers to breast and colorectal cancer screening and one study focused on Internet use for gathering health information. Community members and researchers collaborated to develop guides for the focus group moderators. Community organizations and our community advisory board conducted recruitment, and we trained and employed community members as moderators, assistant moderators, and analysts. Our community partners also helped with dissemination of research findings to their constituents. The methodologic approach and data from these three studies will allow us to more appropriately address health disparities in the American Indian community, with full community support for our research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]