TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of the impact of a smoke-free home initiative in Rotherham, a deprived district in Northern England.
AU - Allmark, Peter
AU - Tod, Angela M.
AU - McDonnel, Ann
AU - Al Alawy, Khamis
AU - Mann, Kaye
AU - Hollis, Emma
AU - Qutishat, Dania
AU - Williamson, Marcus
AU - Lliff, Alison
PY - 2011/6/6
Y1 - 2011/6/6
N2 - BACKGROUND: An evaluation of a smoke-free home initiative launched in Rotherham, northern England, in July 2009. METHODS: Two approaches were used: (i) a postal survey of participants 4 months after signing up as a SFH and (ii) a telephone consultation. The survey was sent to 620 households (of 654 who signed up to the scheme); 289 (46.6%) were returned. The telephone consultation involved 20 households before and 20 after signing up to the scheme. RESULTS: Of the households that permitted some smoking at home before the initiative, ~78% became smoke free after signing up (uncertainty due to missing replies). A high number of participants (169, 60.8%) were already informally smoke free. The most common reasons for participation concerned health, environment, and fire safety. Participants were motivated by, amongst other things, information given in a booklet and by the offer of a fire-safety referral. The most immediate benefits noted by participants were improvements in house hygiene. The most important hindrance to success seemed to be a lack of power to enforce the ban at home, particularly on the part of those living in smokers' homes. CONCLUSION: The Rotherham initiative succeeded in creating smoke-free homes. The results should help those planning similar initiatives. Important points include that: many participants had already instituted some rules regarding smoking at home; whether and how to include households that are already smoke-free; risk of fire and concern with house hygiene are important motivations; those living in smokers' homes may lack power to initiate smoke-free rules.
AB - BACKGROUND: An evaluation of a smoke-free home initiative launched in Rotherham, northern England, in July 2009. METHODS: Two approaches were used: (i) a postal survey of participants 4 months after signing up as a SFH and (ii) a telephone consultation. The survey was sent to 620 households (of 654 who signed up to the scheme); 289 (46.6%) were returned. The telephone consultation involved 20 households before and 20 after signing up to the scheme. RESULTS: Of the households that permitted some smoking at home before the initiative, ~78% became smoke free after signing up (uncertainty due to missing replies). A high number of participants (169, 60.8%) were already informally smoke free. The most common reasons for participation concerned health, environment, and fire safety. Participants were motivated by, amongst other things, information given in a booklet and by the offer of a fire-safety referral. The most immediate benefits noted by participants were improvements in house hygiene. The most important hindrance to success seemed to be a lack of power to enforce the ban at home, particularly on the part of those living in smokers' homes. CONCLUSION: The Rotherham initiative succeeded in creating smoke-free homes. The results should help those planning similar initiatives. Important points include that: many participants had already instituted some rules regarding smoking at home; whether and how to include households that are already smoke-free; risk of fire and concern with house hygiene are important motivations; those living in smokers' homes may lack power to initiate smoke-free rules.
U2 - 10.1093/eurpub/ckr072
DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckr072
M3 - Article
C2 - 21646365
SN - 1101-1262
VL - 22
SP - 248
EP - 251
JO - European Journal of Public Health
JF - European Journal of Public Health
IS - 2
ER -