Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;335:553 (15 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.39301.497593.55 (published 9 September 2007)
Richard Phillips, research fellow1, Amanda Amos, professor of health promotion1, Deborah Ritchie, senior lecturer in health promotion and mental health2, Sarah Cunningham-Burley, professor of medical and family sociology1, Claudia Martin, research director3
1 Public Health Sciences, Division of Community Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Edinburgh EH8 9AG , 2 Nursing Studies, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, 3 Scottish Centre for Social Research, Edinburgh EH3 9AW
Correspondence to: A Amos amanda.amos{at}ed.ac.uk
Design and setting A qualitative cross sectional study involving semistructured interviews conducted across Scotland shortly after the implementation of the legislation on 26 March 2006.
Participants A purposively selected sample of 50 adults (aged 18-75) drawn from all socioeconomic groups, included smokers living with smokers, smokers living with non-smokers, and non-smokers living with smokers.
Results Passive smoking was a well recognised term. Respondents had varied understandings of the risks of secondhand smoke, with a few rejecting evidence of such risks. Children, however, were perceived as vulnerable. Most reported that they restricted smoking in their homes, with a range of restrictions across social classes and home smoking profiles. Spatial, relational, health, and aesthetic factors influenced the development of restrictions. Children and grandchildren were important considerations in the development and modification of restrictions. Other strategies were also used to militate against secondhand smoke, such as opening windows. The meaning of the home as somewhere private and social identity were important underlying factors. Respondents reported greater restrictions on smoking in their cars. There were diverse views on the smoke-free legislation. Few thought it had influenced their smoking in the home, and none thought it had affected how they restricted smoking in their homes.
Conclusions These data suggest two normative discourses around smoking in the home. The first relates to acceptable social identity as a hospitable person who is not anti-smoker. The second relates to moral identity as a caring parent or grandparent. Awareness of the risks of secondhand smoke, despite ambivalence about health messages and the fluidity of smoking restrictions, provides clear opportunities for public health initiatives to support people attain smoke-free homes.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?