Pet owners’ attitudes and behaviours related to smoking and second-hand smoke: a pilot study
- Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
- S Milberger, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, 1 Ford Place, 5C, Detroit, Michigan 48202-3450, USA;
- Received 23 October 2008
- Accepted 18 December 2008
- Published Online First 10 February 2009
Background: Although research indicates that second-hand smoke (SHS) harms both human and animal health, data on the percentage of pet owners who smoke or allow smoking in their homes are not readily available.
Objective: To investigate pet owners’ smoking behaviour and policies on smoking in their homes, and the potential for educational interventions to motivate change in pet owners’ smoking behaviour.
Methods: A web-based survey was used with 3293 adult pet owners. The main outcome measures were smoking behaviour of pet owners and their cohabitants; policies on smoking in pet owners’ homes; and impact of information about the dangers of pet exposure to SHS on pet owners’ smoking intentions.
Results: Of respondents, 21% were current smokers and 27% of participants lived with at least one smoker. Pet owners who smoke reported that information on the dangers of pet exposure to SHS would motivate them to try to quit smoking (28.4%) and ask the people with whom they live to quit smoking (8.7%) or not to smoke indoors (14.2%). Moreover, non-smoking pet owners who live with smokers said that they would ask the people with whom they live to quit (16.4%) or not smoke indoors (24.2%) if given this information. About 40% of current smokers and 24% of non-smokers living with smokers indicated that they would be interested in receiving information on smoking, quitting, or SHS.
Conclusions: Educational campaigns informing pet owners of the risks of SHS exposure for pets could motivate some owners to quit smoking. It could also motivate these owners and non-smoking owners who cohabit with smokers make their homes smoke-free.
Competing interests: None.
Funding: This work was supported by a grant from the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (no. 052400).
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was obtained.