Recent manuscripts
Archive
Editorial Board
Aims and Scope
Open Access
Indexing
Contact us
Authorship & COI
Principles of Transparency Checklist
Publication Ethics
Crossmark
Data Policies
Supporting Diversity
Instructions to authors (PDF)
Manuscript Types
Manuscript Formatting
How to submit
Special Publications & Reprints
Preprints
RESEARCH PAPER
Policymakers and the example of smoking to children: A qualitative study
1
University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
Submission date: 2010-08-13
Acceptance date: 2011-01-22
Publication date: 2011-01-22
Tobacco Induced Diseases 2011;9(January):1
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The normality of smoking that children are exposed to is associated with increased risk of smoking uptake. To better understand policymaking that could address this issue, our aim was to identify and document the views of New Zealand policymakers regarding the example of smoking behaviour to children, and the policy responses they preferred.
Methods:
We analysed public documents for relevant statements, and conducted semi-structured anonymous interviews with 62 purposively selected policymakers. We identified views of New Zealand policymakers regarding: the example to children of adult smoking behaviour, and the policy responses they preferred.
Results:
In both public statements and anonymous interviews, policymakers demonstrated that they perceived a clear relationship between the example of smoking and children taking up smoking. However, they showed a general unwillingness to support further smokefree legislation in areas frequented by children. Rather, they preferred to educate adults about their impact as models for youth behaviour.
Conclusions:
Health advocates in New Zealand and elsewhere may require more evidence of the effect of relevant legislation and of public support, and wider alliances, to significantly move policies specifically to reduce the example of smoking.
The normality of smoking that children are exposed to is associated with increased risk of smoking uptake. To better understand policymaking that could address this issue, our aim was to identify and document the views of New Zealand policymakers regarding the example of smoking behaviour to children, and the policy responses they preferred.
Methods:
We analysed public documents for relevant statements, and conducted semi-structured anonymous interviews with 62 purposively selected policymakers. We identified views of New Zealand policymakers regarding: the example to children of adult smoking behaviour, and the policy responses they preferred.
Results:
In both public statements and anonymous interviews, policymakers demonstrated that they perceived a clear relationship between the example of smoking and children taking up smoking. However, they showed a general unwillingness to support further smokefree legislation in areas frequented by children. Rather, they preferred to educate adults about their impact as models for youth behaviour.
Conclusions:
Health advocates in New Zealand and elsewhere may require more evidence of the effect of relevant legislation and of public support, and wider alliances, to significantly move policies specifically to reduce the example of smoking.
REFERENCES (64)
1.
Kobus K: Peers and adolescent smoking. Addiction. 2003, 98 (Suppl 1): 37-55. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.98.s1.4.x.
2.
Tyas SL, Pederson LL: Psychosocial factors related to adolescent smoking: a critical review of the literature. Tob Control. 1998, 7: 409-20. 10.1136/tc.7.4.409.
3.
Sargent JD: Smoking in film and impact on adolescent smoking: with special reference to European adolescents. Minerva Pediatr. 2006, 58: 27-45.
4.
Wakefield M, Chaloupka F, Kaufman N: Effect of restrictions on smoking at home, at school, and in public places on teenage smoking: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2000, 321: 333-7. 10.1136/bmj.321.7257.333.
5.
Alesci NL, Forster JL, Blaine T: Smoking visibility, perceived acceptability, and frequency in various locations among youth and adults. Prev Med. 2003, 36: 272-81. 10.1016/S0091-7435(02)00029-4.
6.
Leatherdale ST, Brown KS, Cameron R: Social modeling in the school environment, student characteristics, and smoking susceptibility: a multi-level analysis. J Adoles Health. 2005, 37: 330-6. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.008.
7.
Wilcox P: An ecological approach to understanding youth smoking trajectories: problems and prospects. Addiction. 2003, 98 (Suppl 1): 57-77. 10.1046/j.1360-0443.98.s1.5.x.
8.
McCaul KD, Hockemeyer JR, Johnson RJ: Motivation to quit using cigarettes: a review. Addict Behav. 2006, 31: 42-56. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.04.004.
9.
American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation: Smokefree Lists, Maps, and Data. 2010, American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation, Accessed May 24, 2010, [http://www.no-smoke.org/goings...].
10.
Wilson N, Thomson G, Edwards R: Lessons from Hong Kong and other countries for outdoor smokefree areas in New Zealand?. N Z Med J. 2007, 120: U2624.
11.
Thomson G, Wilson N, Edwards R: At the frontier of tobacco control: A brief review of public attitudes to smokefree outdoor places. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009, 11: 584-590. 10.1093/ntr/ntp046. [http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/...].
12.
Andersen PA, Buller DB, Voeks JH: Predictors of support for environmental tobacco smoke bans in state government. Am J Prev Med. 2006, 30: 292-9. 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.002.
13.
Klein EG, Forster JL, McFadden B: Minnesota tobacco-free park policies: attitudes of the general public and park officials. Nicotine & Tob Res. 2007, 9 (Suppl 1): S49-55.
14.
Queensland Government: Tobacco laws: Outdoor public areas. 2010, State of Queensland. Brisbane, [http://www.health.qld.gov.au/t...].
15.
Department for Education: Drug Prevention and Schools: Annex 8 - Sample smoking policies in schools (Reproduced from HEA Booklet, "Smoking Policies in Schools: Guidelines for Policy Development", 1993). 1995, Department for Children, Schools and Families. London, Accessed June 9, 2008, [http://www.dfes.gov.uk/publica...].
16.
Griffiths J: Smoke-free Scotland: Guidance on smoking policies for the NHS, local authorities and care service providers. 2005, Scottish Executive and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Edinburgh, Accessed June 10, 2008, [http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Res...].
17.
National Childcare Accreditation Council: NCAC Smoke Free Environments for Children Position Statement October 2006. 2006, National Childcare Accreditation Council. Sydney, Accessed January 20, 2011, [http://www.ncac.gov.au/about_n...].
18.
Asbridge M: Public place restrictions on smoking in Canada: assessing the role of the state, media, science and public health advocacy. Soc Sci Med. 2004, 58: 13-54. 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00154-0.
19.
Bryan-Jones K, Chapman S: Political dynamics promoting the incremental regulation of secondhand smoke: a case study of New South Wales, Australia. BMC Public Health. 2006, 6: 192-10.1186/1471-2458-6-192.
20.
Freeman B, Chapman S, Storey P: Banning smoking in cars carrying children: an analytical history of a public health advocacy campaign. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2008, 32: 60-65. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00167.x.
21.
Cairney P: The role of ideas in policy transfer: the case of UK smoking bans since devolution. J European Pub Pol. 2009, 16: 471-488. 10.1080/13501760802684718.
22.
de Guia N, Cohen J, Ashley M: Dimensions underlying legislator support for tobacco control policies. Tob Control. 2003, 12: 133-9. 10.1136/tc.12.2.133.
23.
Cohen J, de Guia N, Ashley M: Predictors of Canadian legislators' support for tobacco control policies. Soc Sci Med. 2002, 55: 1069-76. 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00244-1.
24.
Cohen J, Milio N, Rozier R: Political ideology and tobacco control. Tob Control. 2000, 9: 263-267. 10.1136/tc.9.3.263.
25.
Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act: 2003, New Zealand Government. Wellington, Accessed November 3, 2009, [http://www.legislation.govt.nz...].
26.
Hyslop B, Thomson G: Smokefree outdoor areas without the smoke-police: The New Zealand local authority experience. N Z Med J. 2009, 122 (1303): 67-79. [http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal...].
27.
Health Sponsorship Council: Acceptability of smoking in outdoor public places. 2008, Health Sponsorship Council. Wellington, Accessed October 6, 2008, [http://www.hsc.org.nz/publicat...].
28.
Thomson G, Wilson N, Weerasekera D: Most smokers support smokefree council-owned playgrounds: national survey data. NZ Med J. 2009, 122 (1291): 122-3.
29.
King N: Using templates in the thematic analysis of Text. Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Edited by: Cassell C, Symon G. 2004, London: Sage, 14-36.
30.
Health Sponsorship Council: Annual Report to June 1997. Health Sponsorship Council. Wellington. 1997.
31.
Delamere T: Delamere Delighted at Smokefree Response, But Some Teachers Disappoint [Media release]. 1998, New Zealand Government. Wellington, Accessed January 14, 2010, [http://www.beehive.govt.nz/rel...].
32.
Health Sponsorship Council: Annual report 2004-2003. 2003, Health Sponsorship Council. Wellington.
33.
Health Sponsorship Council: Annual report of the Health Sponsorship Council for the year ended 30 June 2006. 2006, Health Sponsorship Council. Wellington.
34.
Health Select Committee: Report on the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. 2003, New Zealand Parliament. Wellington, Accessed March 24, 2008, [http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ...].
35.
Chadwick S: Speech on the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill. 2000, Parliamentary Debates, New Zealand Parliament. Wellington, Accessed January 19, 2011, [http://www.knowledge-basket.co...].
36.
O'Connor D: Smokefree symposium - facing the challenges with fresh thinking [speech at Smokefree Symposium]. 2006, New Zealand Government. Wellington, Accessed January 20, 2011, [http://www.beehive.govt.nz/spe...].
37.
Vodafone Warriors: Vodafone Warriors to be smokefree role models [Vodafone Warriors Media Release 13 March 2007]. 2007, Cancer Society. Wellington, Accessed January 20, 2011, [http://www.smokefreecouncils.o...].
38.
Ministry of Health: Tobacco Control and Smoking: Questions and Answers. 2008, Ministry of Health. Wellington, Accessed March 24, 2008, [http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf...].
39.
Komene G: Sending out smoke signals at our parks. Gisborne Herald. Gisborne. 2006.
40.
Towl D, Vidovich M: Smokefree Upper Hutt - a case study. 2007, Regional Public Health, Health Sponsorship Council. Wellington, Accessed January 20, 2011, [http://socialmarketing.co.nz/c...].
41.
South Taranaki District Council: Butt Out...Please. 2005, South Taranaki District Council. Hawera, Accessed April 8, 2008, [http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories...].
42.
Guy N: Response to smoking around children inquiry [email from government Senior Whip, with National Party position statement]. 2009, New Zealand National Party. Wellington.
43.
Tapp D, Thomson G: Smokefree cars in New Zealand: Rapid research among stakeholders on attitudes and future directions. N Z Med J. 2009, 122 (1303): 54-66.
44.
Thomson G, Wilson N, Howden-Chapman P: Population-level policy options for increasing the prevalence of smokefree homes. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006, 60: 298-304. 10.1136/jech.2005.038091.
45.
King K, Vidourek R, Creighton S: Smokers' willingness to protect children from secondhand smoke. Am J Health Behav. 2003, 27: 554-63.
46.
Hitchman SC, Fong GT, Borland R: Predictors of smoking in cars with nonsmokers: findings from the 2007 Wave of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010, 12: 374-80. 10.1093/ntr/ntq008.
47.
Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM: Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control. 2006, 15 (Suppl 3): iii42-50. 10.1136/tc.2005.012492.
48.
State of California: CA Health & Safety Code 104495. 2003, State of California. Sacramento, Accessed May 24, 2010, [http://www.cdph.ca.gov/program...].
49.
State of Maine: An Act To Ban Smoking on Public Beaches and in Public Parks. 2010, State of Maine, Accessed May 24, 2010, [http://www.mainelegislature.or...].
50.
Turner G, Shepherd J: A method in search of a theory: peer education and health promotion. Health Educ Res. 1999, 14: 235-247. 10.1093/her/14.2.235.
51.
Wakefield M, Forster J: Growing evidence for new benefit of clean indoor air laws: reduced adolescent smoking. Tob Control. 2005, 14: 292-3. 10.1136/tc.2005.013557.
52.
Chapman S, Wakefield M: Tobacco control advocacy in Australia: reflections on 30 years of progress. Health Educ Behav. 2001, 28: 274-89. 10.1177/109019810102800303.
53.
Helgason AR, Lund KE: Environmental tobacco smoke exposure of young children--attitudes and health-risk awareness in the Nordic countries. Nicotine Tob Res. 2001, 3: 341-5. 10.1080/14622200110050420.
54.
Roberts H: Children's participation in policy matters. Hearing the Voices of Children: Social Policy for a New Century. Edited by: Hallett C, Prout A. 2003, New York: Routledge.
55.
Fong GT, Hammond D, Laux FL: The near-universal experience of regret among smokers in four countries: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Survey. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004, 6 (Suppl 3): S341-51. 10.1080/14622200412331320743.
56.
Fox BJ: Framing tobacco control efforts within an ethical context. Tob Control. 2005, 14 (Suppl 2): ii38-44. 10.1136/tc.2004.008300.
57.
Kass N: An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001, 91: 1776-1781. 10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1776.
58.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Public health: ethical issues. 2007, Nuffield Council on Bioethics. London.
59.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights: Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1990, United Nations Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. Geneva, Accessed June 10, 2010, [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/...].
60.
Hudson S, Thomson G, Wilson N: A pilot qualitative study of New Zealand policymakers' knowledge of, and attitudes to, the tobacco industry. Aust N Z Health Policy. 2007, 4: 17-10.1186/1743-8462-4-17.
61.
Payne G, Williams M: Generalization in Qualitative Research. Sociology. 2005, 39: 295-314. 10.1177/0038038505050540.
62.
Seawright J, Gerring J: Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Polit Res Q. 2008, 61: 294-308. 10.1177/1065912907313077.
63.
Tuckett A: Qualitative research sampling: the very real complexities. Nurse Res. 2004, 1sc2: 47-61.
64.
Sandelowski M, Barroso J: Reading Qualitative Studies. Internat J Qual Methods. 2002, 1: 74-108.
CITATIONS (5):
1.
Spatial Distribution of Cosmetic-Procedure Businesses in Two U.S. Cities: A Pilot Mapping and Validation Study
S. Austin, Allegra Gordon, Grace Kennedy, Kendrin Sonneville, Jeffrey Blossom, Emily Blood
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
S. Austin, Allegra Gordon, Grace Kennedy, Kendrin Sonneville, Jeffrey Blossom, Emily Blood
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
2.
Smoking bans for private vehicles: children's rights and children's voices
Morgan Tymko, Damian Collins
Children's Geographies
Morgan Tymko, Damian Collins
Children's Geographies
3.
Process, pitfalls and profits: lessons from interviewing New Zealand policy-makers: Table 1:
Louise N. Signal, Sharron G. Bowers, Richard Edwards, Heather Gifford, Sheena Hudson, Gabrielle L. S. Jenkin, Tolotea S. Lanumata, Marie L. Russell, George Thompson, Mat D. Walton
Health Promotion International
Louise N. Signal, Sharron G. Bowers, Richard Edwards, Heather Gifford, Sheena Hudson, Gabrielle L. S. Jenkin, Tolotea S. Lanumata, Marie L. Russell, George Thompson, Mat D. Walton
Health Promotion International
4.
A system dynamics modelling approach to assess the impact of launching a new nicotine product on population health outcomes
Andrew Hill, Oscar M. Camacho
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Andrew Hill, Oscar M. Camacho
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
5.
Legislators’ Beliefs on Tobacco Control Policies in Nevada
Nancy York, Chris Pritsos, Antonio Gutierrez
Journal of Community Health
Nancy York, Chris Pritsos, Antonio Gutierrez
Journal of Community Health
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1617-9625 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
