Smoking in the home after the smoke-free legislation in Scotland: qualitative study
BMJ 2007; 335 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39301.497593.55 (Published 13 September 2007) Cite this as: BMJ 2007;335:553
- 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
- 1Public Health Sciences, Division of Community Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Edinburgh EH8 9AG
- 2Nursing Studies, School of Health in Social Science, University of Edinburgh, Medical School
- 3Scottish Centre for Social Research, Edinburgh EH3 9AW
- Correspondence to: A Amos amanda.amos{at}ed.ac.uk
- Accepted 31 July 2007
Abstract
Objective To explore the accounts of smokers and non-smokers (who live with smokers) of smoking in their homes and cars after the Scottish smoke-free legislation; to examine the reported impact of the legislation on smoking in the home; and to consider the implications for future initiatives aimed at reducing children's exposure to secondhand smoke in the home.
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.
Footnotes
We thank Irene Miller and Fiona Rait, who undertook some of the interviews; Agnes McGowan, who provided “breathe easy” materials; and Sally Haw for advice and support. We also thank all the respondents for giving their time to this study.
Contributors: AA, SC-B, CM, and DR designed the study. AA wrote the first draft of the paper and is guarantor. RP undertook most of the interviews. All authors were involved in the data analysis and contributed to the paper.
Funding: NHS Health Scotland and the Scottish Executive. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: The study complied with the code of practice on ethical standards for social research involving human respondents operating in public health sciences at Edinburgh University.
Provenance and peer review: Non-commissioned; peer reviewed.
- Accepted 31 July 2007