Tobacco Control, Vol 6, 296-305, Copyright © 1997 by BMJ Publishing Group

Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in the home and worksite and health effects in adults: results from the 1991 National Health Interview Survey

DM Mannino, M Siegel, D Rose, J Nkuchia and R Etzel
Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch, Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30341- 3724, USA. DMM6@cdc.gov

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure in the home and worksite on the health of adults in the United States. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Nationally representative population. PARTICIPANTS: 43,732 adults who completed the Health Promotion and Disease Prevention supplement in the 1991 National Health Interview Survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of restricted activity, bed confinement, and work absence in the two weeks preceding the survey and self-reported health status among adults with and without exposure to ETS. RESULTS: We found that only 20.2% of never- smokers and 23.1% of former smokers reported exposure to ETS at home or work, whereas 87.2% of current smokers reported exposure to ETS. Among never-smokers, after adjusting for covariates, people who were exposed to ETS were more likely to report one or more days of restricted activity (relative risk (RR) = 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10 to 1.46), one or more days of bed confinement (RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.73), and one or more days of work absence (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.73) in the two weeks before the survey than were people without such exposure. We detected smaller trends for one or more days of restricted activity among current and former smokers (RR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.40; and RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.82 to 1.51), one or more days of bed confinement among current smokers (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.88), and one or more days of work absence among former smokers (RR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.50) in the two weeks before the survey than among people without such exposure, although the CIs were wide and chance cannot be excluded as an explanation for these findings. Never- smokers (RR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.62), former smokers (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.39) and current smokers (RR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.56) exposed to ETS were all more likely to report a less than very good health status than were people without such exposure. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that never-smoking adults exposed to ETS report more acute health effects than unexposed, never-smoking adults, and suggests similar findings in current and former smoking adults.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Eisner, M. D., Jacob, P. III, Benowitz, N. L., Balmes, J., Blanc, P. D. (2009). Longer term exposure to secondhand smoke and health outcomes in COPD: Impact of urine 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol. Nicotine Tob Res 11: 945-953 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Wang, C-P, Ma, S J, Xu, X F, Wang, J-F, Mei, C Z, Yang, G-H (2009). The prevalence of household second-hand smoke exposure and its correlated factors in six counties of China. Tobacco Control 18: 121-126 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Foreman, M. G., DeMeo, D. L., Hersh, C. P., Reilly, J. J., Silverman, E. K. (2007). Clinical determinants of exacerbations in severe, early-onset COPD. Eur Respir J 30: 1124-1130 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Shavers, V. L, Fagan, P., Jouridine Alexander, L. A, Clayton, R., Doucet, J., Baezconde-Garbanati, L. (2006). Workplace and home smoking restrictions and racial/ethnic variation in the prevalence and intensity of current cigarette smoking among women by poverty status, TUS-CPS 1998-1999 and 2001-2002. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60: ii34-ii43 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Lam, T-H, Ho, L-M, Hedley, A J, Adab, P, Fielding, R, McGhee, S M, Leung, G M, Aharonson-Daniel, L (2005). Secondhand smoke and respiratory ill health in current smokers. Tobacco Control 14: 307-314 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Nebot, M, Lopez, M J, Tomas, Z, Ariza, C, Borrell, C, Villalbi, J R (2004). Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work and at home: a population based survey. Tobacco Control 13: 95-95 [Full Text]  
• Alberg, A. J., Diette, G. B., Ford, J. G. (2003). Invited Commentary: Attendance and Absence as Markers of Health Status--The Example of Active and Passive Cigarette Smoking. Am J Epidemiol 157: 870-873 [Full Text]  
• Simoni, M., Jaakkola, M.S., Carrozzi, L., Baldacci, S., Di Pede, F., Viegi, G. (2003). Indoor air pollution and respiratory health in the elderly. Eur Respir J 21: 15S-20s [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• McGhee, S M, Hedley, A J, Ho, L M (2002). Passive smoking and its impact on employers and employees in Hong Kong. Occup. Environ. Med. 59: 842-846 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Jaakkola, M.S. (2002). Environmental tobacco smoke and health in the elderly. Eur Respir J 19: 172-181 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Iribarren, C, Friedman, G D, Klatsky, A L, Eisner, M D (2001). Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: association with personal characteristics and self reported health conditions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 55: 721-728 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• McGhee, S. M, Adab, P., Hedley, A. J, Lam, T. H., Ho, L. M., Fielding, R., Wong, C. M. (2000). Passive smoking at work: the short-term cost. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 54: 673-676 [Abstract] [Full Text]