Table 2

Prevalence of voluntary smoke-free home rules, SHS incursions, rules about smoking in the building and preferences for smoke-free policies among MUH residents living in six communities across the USA: overall and stratified by public/affordable housing versus market-rate housing

OutcomeOverall
(n=1565) (%)
Columbia
(n=358) (%)
Charleston
(n=318) (%)
Grand Forks
(n=196) (%)
Bismarck
(n=271) (%)
Fort Collins
(n=227) (%)
Pueblo
(n=195) (%)
Overall (n=1565)
Voluntary rules—smoking in home
Does not all smoking anywhere
Allows smoking anywhere (anytime)
Allows smoking in some places/times
1259 (76.0)
148 (9.5)
146 (14.5)
263 (70.6)
53 (14.6)
41 (14.6)
244 (63.7)
40 (13.9)
33 (22.4)
159 (82.6)
13 (5.6)
22 (11.8)
245 (81.9)
12 (5.5)
10 (12.5)
205 (95.1)
8 (1.3)
11 (3.5)
143 (68.2)
22 (12.3)
29 (19.5)
SHS incursions (unit), past 12 months (% ever) 522 (49.9)121 (45.8)82 (33.5)69 (39.4)99 (53.8)89 (75.1) 62 (47.7)
Rules about smoking in the building
No rules about smoking in building
Smoking prohibited in shared areas
Smoking prohibited in all areas
866 (67.3)
195 (9.3)
383 (23.4)
251 (86.7)
44 (7.0)
38 (6.4)
220 (88.3)
30 (4.3)
41 (7.3)
76 (41.2)
40 (18.7)
66 (40.1)
111 (50.8)
30 (7.8)
108 (41.5)
107 (57.1)
21 (8.7)
78 (34.2)
101 (53.9)
30 (15.6)
52 (30.6)
Preference: smoke-free building policy (% yes) 603 (56.4)162 (56.3)143 (63.7)72 (68.0)95 (51.0)68 (46.6)63 (45.3)
Public/affordable (subsidised) housing (n=459)§
Voluntary rulessmoking in home
Does not all smoking anywhere
Allows smoking anywhere (anytime)
Allows smoking in some places/times
339 (59.5)
55 (12.7)
64 (27.8)
79 (56.2)
12 (9.0)
18 (34.8)
72 (55.4)
18 (27.7)
13 (16.9)
38 (60.8)
8 (13.7)
10 (25.5)
47 (48.6)
4 (9.7)
5 (41.7)
53 (89.1)
4 (0.0)
5 (10.9)
50 (58.3)
9 (13.9)
13 (27.8)
SHS incursions (unit), past 12 months (% ever) 148 (51.9)39 (49.0)25 (37.1)21 (54.8)21 (58.8)21 (63.2) 21 (46.3)
Rules about smoking in the building
No rules about smoking in building
Smoking prohibited in shared areas
Smoking prohibited in all areas
213 (62.5)
98 (16.0)
120 (21.5)
59 (84.9)
28 (10.5)
18 (4.7)
71 (84.1)
12 (9.5)
12 (6.3)
19 (41.7)
17 (31.3)
16 (27.1)
21 (72.1)
12 (10.3)
18 (17.6)
14 (25.0)
12 (13.6)
33 (61.4)
29 (43.3)
17 (25.4)
23 (31.3)
Preference: smoke-free building policy (% yes) 177 (52.9)51 (69.1)50 (57.9)20 (65.7)21 (25.5)14 (66.7)21 (35.6)
Market-rate housing (n=1068)§
Voluntary rules—smoking in home
Does not all smoking anywhere
Allows smoking anywhere (anytime)
Allows smoking in some places/times
888 (82.0)
90 (8.3)
80 (9.7)
174 (76.6)
39 (16.5)
22 (6.9)
168 (65.3)
22 (10.6)
20 (24.1)
116 (90.7)
5 (2.1)
12 (7.1)
193 (93.9)
8 (4.1)
5 (2.0)
149 (96.7)
4 (1.7)
6 (1.7)
88 (75.9)
12 (9.5)
15 (14.7)
SHS incursions (unit), past 12 months (% ever) 366 (49.6)80 (45.7)55 (31.3)46 (35.7)77 (53.0)68 (78.2) 40 (48.3)
Rules about smoking in the building
No rules about smoking in building
Smoking prohibited in shared areas
Smoking prohibited in all areas
635 (69.1)
94 (6.4)
253 (24.4)
184 (88.4)
15 (4.8)
17 (6.8)
147 (89.2)
18 (3.0)
28 (7.8)
55 (41.2)
22 (13.7)
49 (45.0)
89 (43.4)
17 (6.3)
89 (50.3)
92 (69.6)
9 (6.1)
26 (24.3)
69 (59.8)
13 (9.3)
26 (30.8)
Preference: smoke-free building policy (% yes) 412 (57.9)107 (53.0)92 (65.1)49 (68.8)73 (67.8)53 (43.0)38 (47.8)
Subsidised versus market-rate comparison
Voluntary rules—smoking in home
SHS incursions into unit (past 12 months)
Rules about smoking in the building
Preferences: smoke-free building policies
p<0.001
p=0.712
p<0.001
p=0.143
p<0.001
p=0.750
p=0.146
p=0.013
p=0.002
p=0.551
p=0.081
p=0.353
p<0.001
p=0.065
p=0.013
p=0.824
p<0.001
p=0.578
p<0.001
p<0.001
p=0.008
p=0.062
p<0.001
p=0.076
p=0.036
p=0.852
p=0.012
p=0.244
  • Analyses (%s; p values) are weighted to the age, sex and race/ethnicity of MUH residents in each community. n represent unweighted data. Missing data (don’t know and refusals) from outcomes are excluded (number missing overall from each outcome: voluntary rules: n=12; SHS incursions: n=13; rules about smoking in the building: n=121; preferences: smoke-free building policy: n=41).

  • Bolded entries are statistically significant at p<0.05 level based on χ analysis. MUH, multiunit housing; SHS, secondhand smoke.

  • *SHS incursions reported as ‘ever’ versus ‘never’; SHS incursion analysed among MUH residents with voluntary smoke-free home rules (unweighted n=1259; public/affordable: n=339; market rate: n=888).

  • †The applied weight strongly influenced the prevalence of SHS incursions in this community (FC). For comparison, unweighted estimates are: 44.3% (overall), 40.4% (subsidized) and 45.6% (market-rate). p Value for comparison of SHS incursions for subsidized and market-rate residents was not significant for unweighted data (p=0.522).

  • ‡Preferences reported as ‘yes’ versus ‘no’; preferences analysed among MUH residents who reside in smoking-allowable buildings only (unweighted n=1061; public/affordable: n=311; market rate: n=729).

  • §n=38 were missing data on public/affordable housing status and are excluded from stratified analyses.

  • There was a statistically significant difference by community for each outcome based on χ2 analysis (p<0.05) except for the comparison of ‘Yes – SHS incursion into unit in past 12 months’ by community among public/affordable housing (p=0.271; other p values not shown).

  • ¶p Values comparing the outcome by public/affordable or market-rate housing status within each community are provided in the table.