2013b) using face-to-face discussions between parents and health workers on why/how to make the home smoke-free. The REFRESH intervention showed considerable promise in a feasibility study ( Wilson et al. Several studies have explored the use of air quality feedback as a means of changing smoking behaviour in the home, and there is mixed evidence on the effectiveness of interventions using this approach in disadvantaged households. None of these studies used objective measures of household air quality (PM 2.5) as an outcome measure. Of these 24 studies, 13 used objective measures of children’s second-hand smoke exposure, and the authors were unable to pinpoint what made these interventions effective. 2018) of interventions designed to reduce children’s exposure to second-hand smoke in the home screened 78 relevant studies – only 24 of which reported a statistically significant intervention effect for reducing children’s second-hand smoke exposure levels. More recently, a Cochrane review ( Behbod et al. However, all studies reported evidence of continued second-hand smoke exposure to some degree post-intervention. The meta-analysis demonstrated that these approaches improved air concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5) or nicotine within the home.

2015) of interventions designed to reduce household second-hand smoke exposure identified seven interventions that had used objective measures of household air quality as an outcome measure.

2013b).Ī recent systematic review and meta-analysis ( Rosen et al. Most smokers try to protect their children from second-hand smoke, often applying strategies that reduce rather than eliminate second-hand smoke risks completely, such as smoking at the kitchen window, or only smoking in the house when children are absent ( Wilson et al. Many smokers remain unaware of the impact of their smoking on air-quality in their home ( Wilson et al. 2013), and recent work has shown that second-hand smoke remains in household air for up to five hours after a cigarette is extinguished ( Semple & Latif 2014). More than eighty-five percent of second-hand smoke is invisible ( Gee et al. Alongside this widening inequality in exposure, children in poorer communities in countries where smoke-free laws are partial or poorly enforced have seen almost no improvement in exposure levels. Inhaling second-hand smoke can lead to acute irritant and chronic inflammatory effects on the respiratory system, and is likely to be especially harmful during early life.įifteen percent of children living in the most deprived areas of Scotland are exposed to second-hand smoke in their homes, compared to close to zero percent of children living in the least deprived communities ( Scottish Government 2016). Exposure to second-hand smoke is associated with a wide-range of preventable, adverse health outcomes in infants, children and adults.

Dylos dc1700 manual