Policy Support for Smoke-Free and E-Cigarette Free Multiunit Housing

Purpose: Estimate public support for prohibiting multiunit housing (MUH) e-cigarette and cigarette use. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Data from an online panel survey. Sample: A Fall 2018 nationally representative sample of 3,415 (99.3% response rate) United States (US) adults 18-64 years old. Measures: Policy support for prohibiting MUH smoking and e-cigarette use, sociodemographics, and tobacco perceptions and behaviors. Analysis: Weighted multivariate logistic regression examined predictors of support for prohibiting 1) cigarette use and 2) e-cigarette use in MUH. Results: Most respondents expressed support for prohibiting smoking (76.9%) and e-cigarette use (74.0%) in MUH. About 17% (n = 588) of the sample lived in MUH, and living in MUH was not predictive of support for either policy. For both cigarette and e-cigarette policies, current smokers (n = 630; OR = 0.44, p < 0.001; OR = 0.59, p < 0.01) and current e-cigarette users (n = 305; OR = 0.42, p < 0.001; OR = 0.22, p < 0.001) had lower odds of support. Notably, while most smokers supported prohibiting cigarette (51.4%) and e-cigarette use in MUH (51.1%), there was less support among current e-cigarette users for prohibiting cigarette (48.1%) and e-cigarette use in MUH (34.5%). Conclusion: Majority support for prohibiting smoking and e-cigarette use in MUH is promising for policy adoption; however, lower support of both policies among e-cigarette users needs to be examined, as increasing use of e-cigarettes may be shifting social norms away from support for smoke free housing policies.

Remediating Thirdhand Smoke Pollution in Multiunit Housing: Temporary Reductions and the Challenges of Persistent Reservoirs

Introduction Toxic tobacco smoke residue, also known as thirdhand smoke (THS), can persist in indoor environments long after tobacco has been smoked. This study examined the effects of different cleaning methods on nicotine in dust and on surfaces. Aims and Methods Participants had strict indoor home smoking bans and were randomly assigned to: dry/damp cleaning followed by wet cleaning 1 month later (N = 10), wet cleaning followed by dry/damp cleaning (N = 10) 1 month later, and dry/damp and wet cleaning applied the same day (N = 28). Nicotine on surfaces and in dust served as markers of THS and were measured before, immediately after, and 3 months after the cleaning, using liquid chromatography with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS). Results Over a 4-month period prior to cleaning, surface nicotine levels remained unchanged (GeoMean change: −11% to +8%; repeated measures r = .94; p &lt; .001). Used separately, dry/damp and wet cleaning methods showed limited benefits. When applied in combination, however, we observed significantly reduced nicotine on surfaces and in dust. Compared with baseline, GeoMean surface nicotine was 43% lower immediately after (z = −3.73, p &lt; .001) and 53% lower 3 months later (z = −3.96, p &lt; .001). GeoMean dust nicotine loading declined by 60% immediately after (z = −3.55, p &lt; .001) and then increased 3 months later to precleaning levels (z = −1.18, p = .237). Conclusions Cleaning interventions reduced but did not permanently remove nicotine in dust and on surfaces. Cleaning efforts for THS need to address persistent pollutant reservoirs and replenishment of reservoirs from new tobacco smoke intrusion. THS contamination in low-income homes may contribute to health disparities, particularly in children. Implications Administered sequentially or simultaneously, the tested cleaning protocols reduced nicotine on surfaces by ~50% immediately after and 3 months after the cleaning. Nicotine dust loading was reduced by ~60% immediately after cleaning, but it then rebounded to precleaning levels 3 months later. Cleaning protocols were unable to completely remove THS, and pollutants in dust were replenished from remaining pollutant reservoirs or new secondhand smoke intrusion. To achieve better outcomes, cleaning protocols should be systematically repeated to remove newly accumulated pollutants. New secondhand smoke intrusions need to be prevented, and remaining THS reservoirs should be identified, cleaned, or removed to prevent pollutants from these reservoirs to accumulate in dust and on surfaces.

Our Homes, Our Health: Strategies, Insight, and Resources to Support Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing

Tobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Almost 500,000 people die every year in the United States because of tobacco use; approximately one in eight of those deaths are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Significant disparities exist in terms of which groups bear the greatest burden of tobacco-related illness and mortality. Reducing tobacco use and exposure in groups most affected and most at risk is a national public health priority. Tobacco control advocates can promote health equity by prioritizing policies that are likely to decrease tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure and improve access to tobacco cessation resources among populations most at risk for tobacco-related disparities, including people who live in subsidized multiunit housing. In this article, we share the context, process, key milestones, and lessons learned as stakeholders in El Paso, Texas explored and implemented smoke-free policy in subsidized public housing. Partners including the local housing authority, a nonprofit health foundation, the local public health department, and a local university facilitated a thoughtful and community-engaged process that acknowledged the right of residents to breathe clean air in their own homes, potential challenges residents who choose to smoke may face in adapting to smoke-free policy, and the need for support for those who choose to quit. We conclude with five key lessons learned and share resources for other communities, health professionals, and coalitions advocating for and supporting smoke-free housing policy in their communities.

HOUSING CONTEXT AND FUNCTIONAL HEALTH AMONG LOWER INCOME OLDER ADULTS

The characteristics of where older adults live have strong links with disability. Although lower income older adults experience disability at higher rates, less is known about the link between housing characteristics and functional health in this group. A within group comparison among this population is needed to understand how aspects of this vulnerable subgroup’s housing context are associated with health outcomes. The present study examines the association between housing and functional health among a U.S. nationally representative sample of independent living (i.e., not living in nursing homes or assisted living facilities) lower income adults age 65+. Using data from round one of the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a sub-sample of N=2,865 lower income (&lt;$15,000 in the past year) older adults was selected for analysis. Regression analyses indicate that lower income older adults living in multiunit buildings reported better functional health compared to those in other housing contexts (e.g., free-standing homes). This link also significantly varied by age and gender. Living in multiunit housing was associated with better functional health among those age 90+, not associated among those age 80-90, and was negatively associated among those age 65-79. In terms of gender, the link between multiunit housing and better functional health was only significant among women. Findings highlight variation in health across lower income older adults’ housing contexts. Potential explanatory mechanisms (e.g., social isolation) will be discussed. Such information can inform senior housing policy regarding best approaches to providing housing for older adults that optimizes and promotes independent living.