4.5 Article

Secondhand Smoke Risk in Infants Discharged from an NICU: Potential for Significant Health Disparities?

期刊

NICOTINE & TOBACCO RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 1015-1022

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ntr/ntr116

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [R40MC08962]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) threatens fragile infants discharged from a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Smoking practices were examined in families with a high respiratory risk infant (born at very low birth weight; ventilated > 12 hr) in a Houston, Texas, NICU. Socioeconomic status, race, and mental health status were hypothesized to be related to SHSe and household smoking bans. Methods: Data were collected as part of The Baby's Breath Project, a hospital-based SHSe intervention trial targeting parents with a high-risk infant in the NICU who reported a smoker in the household (N = 99). Measures of sociodemographics, smoking, home and car smoking bans, and depression were collected. Results: Overall, 26% of all families with a high-risk infant in the NICU reported a household smoker. Almost half of the families with a smoker reported an annual income of less than $25,000. 46.2% of families reported having a total smoking ban in place in both their homes and cars. Only 27.8% families earning less than $25,000 reported having a total smoking ban in place relative to almost 60% of families earning more (p < .01). African American and Caucasian families were less likely to have a smoking ban compared with Hispanics (p < .05). Mothers who reported no smoking ban were more depressed than those who had a household smoking ban (p < .02). Conclusions: The most disadvantaged families were least likely to have protective health behaviors in place to reduce SHSe and, consequently, are most at-risk for tobacco exposure and subsequent tobacco-related health disparities. Innovative SHSe interventions for this vulnerable population are sorely needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据