ࡱ> ZY,(m "/ 00DArialew Ro$7L840Wo 0"DWingdingsRo$7L840Wo 0 DTimes New Roman840Wo 00DTahomaew Roman840Wo 0" ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` XP>u     Q)B# 9; 0AA@8!ʚ;l8ʚ;g4KdKd0 ppp@ <4dddd 0L$5 <4!d!d. 0L0___PPT10 pp___PPT9|  ,?  %$ Be much more  straight   key debates in future action to achieve smoke-free homesT;S a Amanda Amos1 Deborah Ritchie1 Richard Philips1 Sarah Cunningham-Burley1 Claudia Martin2 bP    ,"Why smoking in the home?VHome the major source of children s exposure to SHS SHS important cause of health problems in children (and adults) Inequalities- low SES homes have fewer restrictions on smoking Smokefree legislation had a positive impact but limited on SHS in home Need for further action to reduce SHS in the home,, pResearch questionsTo describe changes in smoking behaviour and attitudes to smoking following implementation of the smoke-free legislation. To identify potential enablers and barriers to reducing SHS exposure in the home. To consider the implications for future initiatives aimed at reducing children s exposure to SHS in the home. (Funded by NHS Health Scotland) 4=!;!  Study designQualitative study - Purposively selected sample (50) from across Scotland, interviews (June-Sept 2006): Smokers living alone or with only smokers (24) Smokers living with any non-smoker (12) Non-smokers living with any smoker (14) Expert panels - 2 expert panels to discuss the preliminary findings of the study and identify implications for policy and practice. niXw.%Qualitative StudyA Key Findings (B2( Knowledge of risks of SHSEPassive smoking (SHS) a well recognised term but understandings variable, with some uncertainty or rejection of risk: Acceptance of risk (36) - but variable knowledge of specific health risks Ambivalent about risk (8) - but reluctant to expose children/grandchildren Rejection of risk (6) No difference by socioeconomic groupHvZlZ%lZv Patterns of restrictions  No smoking in the home (9) Smoking allowed in just one specific room or an outside door (10) Less restrictive-smoking allowed in several rooms (25) No restrictions (6)  Patterns of restrictionsMost restricted smoking in some way- spatial modified by situational/relational reasons S/S households more likely to have no restrictions, SEG D least likely to have total ban Differences in rooms used for smoking- bedrooms mostly no-smoking, kitchen often viewed as inappropriate to smoke in Children and grandchildren important influences in increasing normal everyday restrictions Partial or none- some took other action perceived to reduce exposure eg candles, windows, doors, restricted to specific space within a room 0PPPG %Rationale informing home restrictionsOften more than one reason Aesthetics- smell, dcor, upholstery Health - self, children, grandchildren - role model - hygiene - safety Convention- just did Respect for others *hM*Development of restrictionsGradual process v life events New children/grandchildren New relationships or break ups Moving house or home improvements Pressure from children or family Advice from health professionals No perception that smoke-free legislation had affected restrictions :EE) 5Impact of smoke-free legislation: smoking in the home Most smokers perceived little or no change in amount smoked in the home- workplaces already smoke-free, limited social lives, reductions in smoking easily accommodated (though increased stigma in public) A few thought might have increased but uncertain (eg  maybe ) and unsure of level of any increase Non-smokers- no increase in exposure to SHS in homeccbEnablers of smoke-free homes Increasing level of restrictions Most had some form of restriction in home Partial/no restrictions temporarily modified in some circumstances Increasing awareness of risks of SHS, particularly for children Aesthetic and other health concerns Moral identity- caring parent, grandparent, adult Social identity- considerate non/smoker (influence of other relationships, respect for others) Social norms about unacceptability of smoking in homeZBarriers to smoke-free homesqLimited understanding of and resistance to messages about health risks of SHS Beliefs about effectiveness of ways of removing or managing smoke in home Meaning of the home- private space protected from public controls and sanctions The need to smoke and social identity Social norms about acceptability of smoking in home Space? Domestic roles and responsibilities? LnPlPPn*! Conclusion Increasing awareness about risks of SHS, despite ambivalence about health messages and fluidity of smoking restrictions, provides opportunities for public health initiatives to support people to achieve smoke-free homes./& Expert panels)Limited knowledge of health and other professionals- SHS effects/risks, level and effectiveness of restrictions in homes and cars, effective approaches/messages Motivation/priority Effective messages and action Education and training- knowledge, attitudes, skills Evidence base Issues and dilemmas*Z*X0' Issues and dilemmas- key debates|Ethics and sensitivities- public/private boundaries complexities/barriers to change rights of the child v adult child protection Approach- incremental/stepped v total smoke-free goals- immediate, intermediate, ultimate harm reduction empowerment evidence baselZZ ZZ 1(.Implications for policy, practice and researchA national strategy- co-ordinated, national and local Media campaigns- raise awareness Individuals- education and support Health and other professionals- health, education, community, local authority Training- knowledge, attitudes, skills Research- evidence base, evaluationZ~ ` 3fffff3̙3f̙` ̙3f` ff3f` f33f3f` 3ffƍ` fff3` f33̙` 3f|>?" dZ@$?lKd@   l@  P`lA n?" dd@   @@``PT   @ ` `p>> H @   (  .T   "\\   "h  s *"   $0e0e BCDELF>5%8c8c     ?1d0u0@Ty2 NP'p<'p@A)BCD|E?|b4"%>Ul @   `c"$  f\   "n"  0G"r B T??"   <oGH "`  T Click to edit Master title style! !*   6q "  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S    `w ??"`>   ^*     `p| ??"`@a   ^*     `Ȁ ??"\5  b* B  s *޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙80___PPT10.WY1 Capsules   } u @  (  T p  "p  6m"@  F 0 "  B G0* "pp  F 0 rZ    # "  n" B 0G" R r  T??"L    <dv "4 `   W#Click to edit Master subtitle style$ $    `${ ??"`>   b*     ` ??"`@a   ^*     ` ??"`0  b* "    f@G0* ??"p   T Click to edit Master title style! !B  s *޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙80___PPT10.WY1 0 zrP (    0\ @9   P*    0ĉ y 9  R*  d  c $ ?Ay    0`    RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!     S  6xe 3@l   P*    60j 3y l  R*  H  09g ? 3380___PPT10.7 & `x(  x x 0w @9   X*  x 0P| y 9  Z*  x 6h 3@l   X*  x 6 3y l  Z* H x 09g ? 3380___PPT10.p y0(  x  c $膉    x  c $@ ,     6؈ @  sA1. University of Edinburgh 2. Scottish Centre for Social ResearchBBH  0޽h ? 3380___PPT10.V9$  p$(  r"  S  `   r  S (   H  0޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙80___PPT10.c:  :(  r"  S 0 `     S l   "P@08XH  0޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙80___PPT10.W0   (:(  (r" ( S h `    ( S  Y  "  @H ( 0޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙___PPT10i.X3+D=' = @B +$  $(  r"  S Ƚ `   r  S    H  0޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙80___PPT10.e>  <:(  <r" < S Ĺ `    < S ƹ   "P@08XH < 0޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙___PPT10i.XЎ +D=' = @B +  ,:(  ,r" , S ҹ `    , S hع   "P@08XH , 0޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙___PPT10i.Xp+D=' = @B +  \:(  \r" \ S ߹ `    \ S h Y  "P@08XH \ 0޽h ? 3fffff3̙3f̙___PPT10i.j- &Hhj2--X$*hijptyeYPJIHIJPYet(.0000.+(<KW`fhhhf`WK<y+pjih--& &&}}#&}e%-3f-$ccc#c#}#}#}}--&&b%-3f-$ puy| }|yu"p#b#b--&&&& &_& &Nu3& @"ArialR ww 0wr f>- 3f. 2 t . 3f.2 Be much more # + + . 3f. 2  . 3f.2 straight . 3f. 2  .@"Arial "ww 0wr f>- 3f. 2 . 3f. 2 key  . 3f.=2 t$debates in future action to achieve        . 3f.2 tsmoke+. 3f. 2  -. 3f.2  free homes +.--&J-- 3f@"Arial ww 0wr f>- ff.2 _ Amanda Amose.@"Tahoma $ww 0wr f>- ff. 2 W1 .@"Arial ww 0wr f>- ff.2 Deborah Ritchie  .@"Tahoma &ww 0wr f>- ff. 2 w1 .@"Arial ww 0wr f>- ff.2 Richard Philips .@"Tahoma (ww 0wr f>- ff. 2 1 .@"ArialR ww 0wr f>- ff.2 Sarah Cunningham . ff. 2 -. ff.2 Burley .@"Tahoma ,ww 0wr f>- ff. 2 ;1 .@"Arial ww 0wr f>- ff.2 Claudia Martin .@"Tahoma .ww 0wr f>- ff. 2 2 .--q--- ff@"Arial ww 0wr f>- ff..2 H1. University of Edinburgh      . ff.@2 e&2. Scottish Centre for Social Research          .--"System>r f> !D-&TNPP &՜.+,0     On-screen ShowDesktop Servicesf~z| Arial WingdingsTimes New RomanTahoma CapsulesTBe much more straight key debates in future action to achieve smoke-free homesWhy smoking in the home?Research questions Study designQualitative StudyKnowledge of risks of SHSPatterns of restrictions Patterns of restrictions&Rationale informing home restrictionsDevelopment of restrictions6Impact of smoke-free legislation: smoking in the homeEnablers of smoke-free homes Barriers to smoke-free homes ConclusionExpert panels!Issues and dilemmas- key debates/Implications for policy, practice and research  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles_ZzPC1PC1  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=?@ABCDEFGHJKLMNOPRSTUVWX[Root EntrydO)Current UserQSummaryInformation(>PowerPoint Document(~zDocumentSummaryInformation8I