#35626 1pg 6hrs
Intervention: Tobacco Control
Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Health-Care Utilization Among Children in the United States
Ashley L. Merianos, PhD, CHES 1 , Cathy Odar Stough, PhD
2 ,
Laura A. Nabors, PhD, ABPP 1 , and E. Melinda Mahabee-Gittens, MD, MS
3
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess patterns of health-care utilization among children who potentially had tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) compared to those who were not exposed.
Design: A secondary data analysis of the 2011 to 2012 National Survey on Children’s Health was performed.
Setting: Households nationwide were selected.
Participants: A total of 95 677 children aged 0 to 17 years.
Measures: Sociodemographic characteristics, TSE status, and health-care visits were measured.
Analysis: Multivariable logistic regression models were performed.
Results: A total of 24.1% of children lived with smokers. Approximately 5% had home TSE. Participants who lived with a smoker were significantly more likely to have had a medical care visit (odds ratio [OR] ¼ 1.22, confidence interval [CI] ¼ 1.21-1.22) and were more likely to seek sick care or health advice at an emergency department (OR ¼ 1.23, CI ¼ 1.23-1.24) but were less likely to have had a dental care visit (OR ¼ 0.82, CI ¼ 0.82-0.83) than those who did not live with a smoker. Similar findings were found among participants who had home TSE.
Conclusion: TSE is a risk factor for increased use of pediatric medical care. Based on the high number of children who potentially had TSE and received sick care or health advice at an emergency emergency department, this setting may be a venue to deliver health messages to caregivers.
Keywords secondhand smoke, tobacco use, health-care utilization, pediatrics
Purpose
Tobacco smoke exposure (TSE) has been consistently associ-
ated with an increased prevalence of childhood morbidity
including increased bronchiolitis, asthma exacerbations,
respiratory infections, and sudden infant death syndrome. 1
Yet, in 2011 to 2012, 24.7 million US children were exposed
to tobacco smoke. 2
TSE-related illnesses may contribute to
increased demand for health-care services and they represent
a great proportion of preventable childhood morbidity. 1
Thus,
the American Academy of Pediatrics 3
(AAP) identifies tobacco
use as a pediatric disease due to the harm to children caused by
use and TSE. Further, the AAP encourages implementing
initiatives during all health-care visits in order to decrease TSE
and related harms.
Research on the association between TSE and health-care
utilization has produced inconsistent findings, suggesting a
complex relationship. Studies have reported caregiver smoking
and TSE exposure are associated with an increased number of
physician visits for children with asthma, 4
respiratory symp-
toms, 5
emergency department visits for respiratory symptoms, 6
and hospital admissions. 7
In contrast, TSE has been associated
with a decreased number of preventive care visits, 8
health-care
visits for asthma, 9
and hospital admissions for asthma. 4
Fur-
ther, some research has not found differences between TSE and
number of primary care visits, emergency visits, or hospital
1 Health Promotion and Education Program, School of Human Services,
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA 2 Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Cincinnati Children’s
Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA 3
Division of Emergency Medicine, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical
Center, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Ashley L. Merianos, PhD, CHES, School of Human Services, University of
Cincinnati, PO Box 210068, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA.
Email: ashley.merianos@uc.edu
American Journal of Health Promotion 2018, Vol. 32(1) 123-130 ª The Author(s) 2017 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0890117116686885 journals.sagepub.com/home/ahp
admissions. 8
For these reasons, examining patterns of health-
care utilization in a national sample of children who live with
smokers and have home TSE is warranted.
The aim of the present study was to compare patterns of
health-care utilization among children who were potentially
exposed to tobacco smoke compared to those who were not
exposed using a nationally representative sample of children
aged 0 to 17 years. We hypothesized that children who live
with smokers or have home TSE use more health-care services
than children who do not live with smokers or do not have
home TSE.
Methods
Design
The data for this study are from the 2011 to 2012 National
Survey on Children’s Health (NSCH), and the present study’s
analyses were performed in 2015. This survey was conducted
by the US Centers for Disease and Control Prevention’s
National Center for Health Statistics, with funding provided
from the US Department of Health and Human Services’
Maternal and Child Health Bureau. 10
The purpose of the survey
was to provide national and state-specific prevalence estimates
for a range of children’s health and well-being indicators in
combination with information on the child’s family context and
neighborhood environment. 10
Sample
The 2011 to 2012 NSCH was a telephone survey conducted
between February 2011 and June 2012. It consisted of a total
sample of 95 677 children from birth through 17 years of age,
with approximately 1 850 interviews collected per state. A list-
assisted random digit dial sample of landline telephone num-
bers and an independent random digit dial sample of cell phone
numbers were called to find households with children 0 to
17 years from each of the 50 states including the District of
Columbia. The cell phone sample was new for survey admin-
istration, and landline and cell phones make up the complete
sample. Prior research indicates that answering machines and
caller ID have contributed to a decline in response rates of
conducting telephone surveys and that individuals are substi-
tuting landline telephones with cell phones. 11,12
Thus, individ-
uals have a greater frequency of answering their cell phones
compared to a landline phone; the inclusion of cell phones may
have increased NSCH response rates. If more than 1 age-
eligible child lived in the household, 1 child was randomly
selected to be included in the study sample. Interviews lasted
on average 33 to 34 minutes and were conducted in English,
Spanish, or 1 of 4 Asian languages. The respondent was iden-
tified by the interviewer as a parent or guardian with knowl-
edge of the child’s health status and health-care. The interview
completion rate among known households with children was
54.1% for the landline sample and 41.2% for the cell phone sample.
13 The research ethics review board of National Center
for Health Statistics approved data collection procedures. Ver-
bal informed consent for survey participation was obtained
after informing respondents of the voluntary and confidential
nature of the survey. Analyses were conducted for the total
95 677 children from birth to 17 years of age.
Measures
1. We investigated 5 health-care visit outcome variables
using a yes/no scale:
a. Medical care visit was derived from the question
‘‘During the past 12 months, did [sampling child]
see a doctor, nurse, or other health-care professional
for any kind of medical care including sick child
care, well-child checkups, physical examinations,
and hospitalizations?’’
b. Preventive medical care visit was derived from the
question ‘‘During the past 12 months, did [sampling
child] see a doctor, nurse, or other health-care pro-
vider for preventive medical care such as physical
examination or well-child checkup?’’
c. Specialty care visit was derived from the question
‘‘Specialists are doctors like surgeons, heart doc-
tors, allergy doctors, skin doctors, and others who
specialize in one area of health-care. During the
past 12 months, did [sampling child] see a specialist
(other than a mental health professional)?’’
d. Dental care visit was derived from the question
‘‘During the past 12 months, how many times did
[sampling child] see a dentist for any kind of dental
care, including checkups, dental cleaning, X-rays, or
filling cavities?’’
e. Preventive dental care visit was derived from the
question ‘‘During the past 12 months, how many
times did [sampling child] see a dentist for preven-
tive dental care, such as checkups and dental
cleanings?’’
2. Usual place for sick care or health advice for the sampling
child was investigated using the question ‘‘Is there a place
that [sampling child] usually goes when (he/she) is sick or
you need advice about (his/her) health?’’ If respondents
answered ‘‘yes,’’ they were asked the following question:
‘‘Is it a doctor’s office, emergency department, hospital
outpatient department, clinic, or some other place?’’
The 2 main TSE variables were household smokers and
home TSE. The presence of household smokers was assessed
with the question ‘‘Does anyone in your household use cigar-
ettes, cigars, or pipe tobacco?’’ Home TSE was assessed with
the question ‘‘Does anyone smoke inside the child’s home?’’
and was only asked of respondents who answered ‘‘yes’’ to the
question on household smokers. If caregivers answered ‘‘yes’’
to both questions, the child was considered positive for both
household smokers and home TSE.
124 American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)
Covariates considered were the sampling child’s gender,
age, and race/ethnicity (white, black, Hispanic, and multira-
cial), mothers’ education (less than a high school graduate,
high school graduate, and more than high school), household
composition (2-parent biological or step families, single
mother, and other family type), household poverty status mea-
sured as a ratio of family income to federal poverty level (FPL;
<100%, 100%-199%, 200%-399%, and >400%), and insurance type (public, private, and no insurance).
Analysis
NSCH data were collected through a complex sample design
involving unequal selection probabilities of children within
households and stratification of households within states. We
applied sampling weights to adjust for potential nonresponse
biases and account for noncoverage of nontelephone house-
holds. Resulting estimates are generalizable to all US nonin-
stitutionalized children aged 0 to 17 years, since the weighting
procedure includes a raking adjustment to parallel each US
state’s weighted survey responses to selected demographic
characteristics of the state’s noninstitutionalized population
17 years and younger. Bivariate associations between whether
there was a household smoker and sociodemographic charac-
teristics were tested with w2 analyses. Similar analyses were performed between home TSE status and sociodemographics.
Then, multivariable regression analyses were performed to
examine whether (1) living with a household smoker or (2)
having home TSE predicted health-care utilization. Specifi-
cally, a series of multivariable logistic regression models with
a step-wise selection procedure were performed to derive the
odds ratios (OR) and covariate-adjusted prevalence of exposure
for each type of health-care visit outcome (ie, any medical visit,
preventive medical care visit, specialty care visit, any dental
care visit, and preventive dental care visit) and usual place for
sick care or health advice (eg, doctor’s office, emergency
department). All data were conducted by using SPSS version
23.0.
Results
Child gender had near equal distribution: 51.2% were males and 48.8% were females. The majority of sampling children were white (52.5%) followed by Hispanic (23.0%), black (13.5%), and multiracial (10.3%). Two-thirds of the children lived in a biological, 2-parent home (65.6%), 19.0% lived with a single mother, 8.8% lived in a step family, 2-parent home, and 6.7% had other family household composition. Most moth- ers of sampling children completed more than high school
(63.8%), 21.9% were high school graduates, and 14.3% did not graduate from high school. Based on FPL, 22.4% had a family income less than 100% FPL, 21.5% were 100% to 199% FPL, 28.5% were 200% to 399% FPL, and 27.8% had a family income more than 400% FPL. More than half had private health insurance (57.4%), 37.1% had public health insurance (eg, Medicaid, Children’s Medicaid), and 5.6% were currently
uninsured. A total of 24.1% of the 95 677 children lived with smokers. Approximately 5% had home TSE.
In the past 12 months of survey completion, a total of 88.1% children had any medical care visit, 84.4% had a preventive medical care visit, 22.6% had a specialty care visit, 77.5% had any dental care visit, and 77.2% had a preventive dental care visit. Most sampling children (91.4%) had a usual place for sick care or health advice; 76.6% usually went to a doctor’s office for sick care or health advice, 2.4% usually went to a hospital emergency department, 2.4% usually went to a hospital out- patient department, 18.4% usually went to a clinic or health center, and 0.1% usually went to a retail store or minute clinic.
Sociodemographic characteristics in relation to house-
hold smokers and home TSE are described in Table 1.
Child’s gender, age, race/ethnicity, household composition,
mother’s education, household poverty status, and insur-
ance type significantly differed based on household smo-
kers and home TSE.
A series of multivariable logistic regression models, while
adjusting for covariates, indicated that children who lived with
a smoker were more likely to have had a preventive visit (odds
ratio [OR] ¼ 1.10, confidence interval [CI] ¼ 1.09-1.10), a specialty visit (OR ¼ 1.01, CI ¼ 1.00-1.01), or a medical care visit including sick care, checkups, or physical examinations
(OR ¼ 1.22, CI ¼ 1.21-1.22). Children who lived with a smo- ker were less likely to have had a dental care visit (OR ¼ 0.82, CI ¼ 0.82-0.83) or preventive dental care visit (OR ¼ 0.81, CI ¼ 0.80-0.81; Table 2). Overall, children who lived with a smo- ker were more likely to have a usual place for sick care or
health advice (OR ¼ 1.03, CI ¼ 1.03-1.03); specifically, chil- dren were significantly more likely to have usual care at the
following places: a doctor’s office (OR ¼ 1.05, CI ¼ 1.05-1.06), hospital emergency department (OR ¼ 1.23, CI ¼ 1.23-1.24), hospital outpatient department (OR ¼ 1.01, CI ¼ 1.00-1.01), or retail store or minute clinic (OR ¼ 1.53, CI ¼ 1.50-1.55). Children who lived with a smoker were less likely to report
a clinic or health center (OR ¼ 0.92, CI ¼ 0.92-0.92) as a usual place for sick care or health advice.
Multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that
children who had home TSE were more likely to have had a
medical care visit (OR ¼ 1.35, CI ¼ 1.34-1.35) or a preventive care visit (OR ¼ 1.32, CI ¼ 1.31-1.32). Children who had home TSE were less likely to have had a specialty care visit
(OR ¼ 0.92, CI ¼ 0.91-0.92), a dental care visit (OR ¼ 0.77, CI ¼ 0.76-0.77), or a preventive dental care visit (OR ¼ 0.73, CI ¼ 0.73-0.74; Table 3). Overall, children who had home TSE were less likely to have a usual place for sick care or health
advice (OR ¼ 0.90, CI ¼ 0.90-0.91); children were signifi- cantly less likely to have usual care at a clinic or health center
(OR ¼ 0.85, CI ¼ 0.85-0.86). Children who had home TSE were more likely to have usual care at the following places: a
doctor’s office (OR ¼ 1.06, CI ¼ 1.05-1.06), a hospital emer- gency department (OR ¼ 1.40, CI ¼ 1.38-1.40), a hospital outpatient department (OR ¼ 1.19, CI ¼ 1.18-1.20), or a retail store or minute clinic (OR ¼ 1.30, CI ¼ 1.26-1.34) as usual places for sick care or health advice.
Merianos et al. 125
Discussion
Among a nationally representative sample, approximately one-
quarter of children lived with a smoker corresponding to a
weighted total of 17.6 million children and approximately
5% had home TSE equivalent to 3.6 million children. Com- pared to the 2007 NSCH, self-reported rates of TSE have
decreased over the past several years from 19.1 million chil-
dren who lived with a smoker (26.2%) and 5.5 million children who had home TSE (7.6%).14 Although self-reported NSCH TSE rates have slightly decreased, recent research that assessed
TSE using serum cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine that is an
optimal assessment of TSE, 15
found that 15 million children
aged 3 to 11 years and 9.6 million children aged 12 to 19 years
were exposed to tobacco smoke. 2
These higher rates, compared
to the present study’s results, are not surprising since caregivers
typically do not report their child’s accurate level of TSE. 6,16,17
Thus, it is important to note that children who live with a
smoker, despite reporting no one smokes inside the home, are
still at risk of exposure.
We found a considerable difference between self-reported
rates of smokers in the home compared to home TSE. This
association suggests that home TSE rates may actually be
higher than the rates self-reported by caregivers, given that
the home is the most common source of TSE for children. 18
Additionally, prior evidence suggests that the majority of
nonsmokers who live with a smoker are exposed to TSE. 19
As smoke-free policies have increased in public places and
work places in recent years, private settings such as homes
and cars are becoming greater sources of exposure. 18
The
prevalence of home smoking bans has increased over the past
2 decades, but there has been a disproportionately slower
decline in home TSE since less than half of households with
a smoker have adopted voluntary smoke-free home rules. 20
Thus, efforts are still widely needed to promote voluntary
smoke-free policies in the home and to encourage smoking
cessation among caregivers.
As hypothesized and similar to previous research, 4,5
chil-
dren who lived with a smoker and who had home TSE were
more likely to have had any medical care visit including sick
Table 1. Sociodemographic Characteristics of Children 0 to 17 Years Old by Household Smokers and Home TSE in the United States, 2011 to 2012.
Sociodemographic Characteristics
Household Smokers Home TSE
Lives With Nonsmoker (n ¼ 72 617), n (%)a
Lives With Smoker (n ¼ 22 137), n (%)a P Value
No Home TSE (n ¼ 90 125), n (%)a
Home TSE (n ¼ 4623), n (%)a P Value
Child gender Female 35 262 (76.1) 10 651 (23.9) <.001 43 710 (95.2) 2199 (4.8) <.001 Male 32 276 (75.7) 11 463 (24.3) 46 314 (95.0) 2423 (5.0)
Child age 0-9 years old 38 316 (76.4) 11 557 (23.6) <.001 48 182 (96.7) 1687 (3.3) <.001 10-17 years old 34 301 (75.2) 10 580 (24.8) 41 943 (93.1) 2936 (6.9)
Child race/ethnicity White 47 101 (73.9) 14 217 (26.1) <.001 58 472 (94.8) 2843 (5.2) <.001 Black 6731 (75.0) 2132 (25.0) 8073 (91.0) 790 (9.0) Hispanic 10 033 (81.7) 2637 (18.3) 12 312 (98.1) 358 (1.9) Multiracial 7598 (73.5) 2840 (26.5) 9872 (94.9) 566 (5.1)
Household composition 2-parent biological 53 788 (80.3) 12 295 (19.7) <.001 64 155 (97.1) 1924 (2.9) <.001 2-parent stepfamily 3854 (59.1) 2696 (40.9) 5891 (90.4) 658 (9.6) Single mother 10 290 (71.0) 4800 (29.0) 13 759 (91.5) 1331 (8.5) Other family type 4296 (67.6) 2227 (32.4) 5841 (91.2) 681 (8.8)
Mother education Less than high school 4183 (70.5) 2505 (29.5) <.001 6019 (92.9) 669 (7.1) <.001 High school graduate 10 002 (64.2) 6046 (35.8) 14 599 (91.4) 1447 (8.6) More than high school 53 419 (82.0) 11 147 (18.0) 62 785 (97.3) 1781 (2.7)
Household poverty status <100% 8924 (66.3) 5832 (33.7) <.001 13 032 (90.4) 1721 (9.6) <.001 100%-199% 11 379 (68.6) 5 634 (31.4) 15 649 (92.9) 1364 (7.1) 200%-399% 22 400 (77.4) 6298 (22.6) 27 644 (96.8) 1053 (3.2) �400% 29 914 (87.8) 4373 (12.2) 33 800 (98.8) 485 (1.2)
Insurance type Public 16 832 (66.0) 10 246 (34.0) <.001 24 379 (91.5) 2695 (8.5) <.001 Private 52 344 (82.9) 10 208 (17.1) 61 043 (97.6) 1507 (2.4) No insurance 2642 (70.6) 1338 (29.4) 3636 (93.9) 344 (6.1)
Abbreviation: TSE, tobacco smoke exposure. a n refers to raw scores and percentages are weighted.
126 American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)
care, checkups, or physical examinations in the past year.
Greater use of any medical care may be related to the fact that
children with TSE are more likely to experience a variety of
health conditions and illnesses. 21,22
Further, it is particularly
concerning that children with TSE are less likely to have a
usual place of care due to recent efforts to increase the presence
of patient-centered medical homes. Lack of a usual place of
care also limits the opportunities for medical providers to mon-
itor changes in these children’s health over time. When chil-
dren with TSE do have a regular place of care, emergency
departments and retail store/minute clinics were the most likely
sources of care, suggesting these settings may be suitable
venues for providing interventions for these families.
Children who lived with a smoker and who had home TSE
were significantly more likely to seek sick care or health
advice at an emergency department. Research indicates that
there are high rates of biochemically validated TSE in chil-
dren who present to the pediatric emergency department. 6
Given the high acceptability of tobacco-related interventions
among caregivers who smoke in this setting, 23
the emergency
department may be an optimal venue for delivering interven-
tions to decrease child TSE and increase caregiver quit
attempts. 24,25
Contrary to our hypothesis, children who lived with a smo-
ker and who had home TSE were less likely to have had a
dental care visit including checkups, X-rays, or fillings in the
past year. This association is concerning, given children with
TSE are at greater risk of dental caries. 26
Further, smoking
cessation interventions at dental visits are not widespread. 27,28
Taken together, efforts are needed to increase dental visits
among children who have TSE and to increase smoking cessa-
tion counseling among smokers during dental visits.
Table 2. Adjusted Prevalence Health-Care Visits According to Household Smokers in Children 0 to 17 Years Old in the United States, 2011 to 2012.
Household Smokers
Health-Care Visits Multivariable Regression a
No, n (%)b Yes, n (%)b OR 95% CI
Any medical care visit Child lives with nonsmoker 7086 (11.6) 65 435 (88.4) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 2655 (12.5) 19 438 (87.5) 1.22c 1.21-1.22
Preventive medical care visit Child lives with nonsmoker 10 339 (15.1) 61 772 (84.9) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 3815 (16.9) 18 100 (83.1) 1.10c 1.09-1.10
Specialty care visit Child lives with nonsmoker 53 742 (76.8) 18 813 (23.2) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 17 049 (79.2) 5059 (20.8) 1.01c 1.00-1.01
Any dental care visit Child lives with nonsmoker 12 061 (21.0) 56 482 (79.0) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 5372 (27.1) 15 617 (72.9) 0.82c 0.82-0.83
Preventive dental care visit Child lives with nonsmoker 12 265 (21.3) 56 184 (78.7) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 5490 (27.8) 15 447 (72.2) 0.81
c 0.80-0.81
Has usual place for sick care or health advice Child lives with nonsmoker 4019 (8.4) 68 473 (91.6) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 1680 (9.1) 20 410 (90.9) 1.03c 1.03-1.03
Doctor’s office as usual place for sick care or health advice Child lives with nonsmoker 14 172 (22.8) 54 822 (77.2) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 5396 (25.3) 15 461 (74.7) 1.05
c 1.05-1.06
Hospital emergency department as usual place for sick care or health advice Child lives with nonsmoker 68 130 (97.9) 864 (2.1) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 20 315 (96.8) 542 (3.2) 1.23c 1.23-1.24
Hospital outpatient department as usual place for sick care or health advice Child lives with nonsmoker 67 507 (97.6) 1487 (2.4) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 20 244 (97.4) 613 (2.6) 1.01
c 1.00-1.01
Clinic or health center as usual place for sick care or health advice Child lives with nonsmoker 57 231 (81.9) 11 763 (18.1) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 16 640 (80.7) 4217 (19.3) 0.92c 0.92-0.92
Retail store/minute clinic as usual place for sick care or health advice Child lives with nonsmoker 68 936 (99.9) 58 (0.1) Ref Ref Child lives with smoker 20 833 (99.9) 24 (0.1) 1.53c 1.50-1.55
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; Ref, referent. aStep-wise regression controlling for mother education, household composition, poverty level, insurance, child gender, child age, and child race/ethnicity. bn refers to raw scores and percentages are weighted. c P < .001.
Merianos et al. 127
Limitations
There are several factors that may limit the generalizability of
the study results. For instance, data are based on self-report,
and as such social desirability may have influenced information
provided by caregivers who might have been very sensitive to
reporting if they smoked in the home. The NSCH may have
resulted in sampling bias that influenced parameter estimates
due to the data collection procedures. Although the NSCH may
not be truly representative of the US population due to the low
capture rate, the NSCH does provide information consistent
with the overall survey’s purpose to provide estimates of child
data for key health indicators and generate information about
children, their families, and neighborhoods. Further, the phras-
ing of the home TSE question may have also influenced social
desirability bias (eg, ‘‘inside the child’s home’’ vs ‘‘in your
home’’). Based on the self-report nature of the TSE questions,
underreporting or overreporting may have occurred. 29,30
Bio-
chemical validation of results would provide a more precise
measure of TSE. Due to self-report, caregivers may have not
known the differences between what type of place (eg, doctor’s
office vs clinic or health center) they go most often for their
child’s medical care. Data from behavioral observations,
reports from another family member, or biochemical validation
of the child’s TSE status would provide a way to verify infor-
mation provided by caregivers. The NCHS does not measure
the child’s smoking status, which may confound results in the
older age group. The NCHS is cross-sectional in nature. Evi-
dence on the impact of TSE over the course of children’s
development would provide more information on health-care
utilization. Finally, analyses were based on single items or
Table 3. Adjusted Prevalence of Health-Care Visits According to Home TSE Among Children 0 to 17 Years Old in the United States, 2011 to 2012.
Home TSE
Health-Care Visits Multivariable Regression a
No, n (%)b Yes, n (%)b OR 95% CI
Any medical care visit No home TSE 9071 (11.7) 80 391 (88.3) Ref Ref Home TSE 669 (13.3) 3937 (86.7) 1.35c 1.34-1.35
Preventive medical care visit No home TSE 13 211 (15.5) 76 241 (84.5) Ref Ref Home TSE 942 (17.1) 3626 (82.9) 1.32c 1.31-1.32
Specialty care visit No home TSE 67 162 (77.2) 22 883 (22.8) Ref Ref Home TSE 3626 (80.3) 986 (19.7) 0.92c 0.91-0.92
Any type of dental care visit No home TSE 16 188 (22.2) 68 810 (77.8) Ref Ref Home TSE 1244 (27.4) 3285 (72.6) 0.77c 0.76-0.77
Preventive dental care visit No home TSE 16 481 (22.6) 68 386 (77.4) Ref Ref Home TSE 1273 (28.5) 3241 (71.5) 0.73
c 0.73-0.74
Has usual place for sick care or health advice No home TSE 5240 (8.4) 84 718 (91.6) Ref Ref Home TSE 459 (12.1) 4159 (87.9) 0.90c 0.90-0.91
Doctor’s office as usual place for sick care or health advice No home TSE 18 311 (23.2) 67 235 (76.8) Ref Ref Home TSE 1255 (26.8) 3044 (73.2) 1.06
c 1.05-1.06
Hospital emergency department as usual place for sick care or health advice No home TSE 84 304 (97.7) 1242 (2.3) Ref Ref Home TSE 4135 (95.4) 164 (4.6) 1.40c 1.38-1.40
Hospital outpatient department as usual place for sick care or health advice No home TSE 83 578 (97.6) 1968 (2.4) Ref Ref Home TSE 4167 (96.8) 132 (3.2) 1.19
c 1.18-1.20
Clinic or health center as usual place for sick care or health advice No home TSE 70 521 (81.6) 15 025 (18.4) Ref Ref Home TSE 3346 (81.2) 953 (18.8) 0.85c 0.85-0.86
Retail store/minute clinic as usual place for sick care or health advice No home TSE 85 470 (99.9) 76 (0.1) Ref Ref Home TSE 4293 (99.9) 6 (0.1) 1.30c 1.26-1.34
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; Ref, referent; TSE, tobacco smoke exposure. aStep-wise regression controlling for mother education, household composition, poverty level, insurance, child gender, child age, and child race/ethnicity. bn refers to raw scores and percentages are weighted. c P < .001.
128 American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)
questions. Although questions were specific and easy to under-
stand, use of standardized measures might have provided more
accurate information.
Significance
Our results indicate that TSE is a risk factor for increased use of
medical care. Based on the high number of children who lived
with a smoker or were exposed to tobacco smoke inside the
home and received sick care or health advice at an emergency
department, this setting may be a potential venue for health
messages to inform caregivers about the dangers of TSE for
children. The AAP and prior research recommends screening
and documenting TSE as standard care during health-care vis-
its. 3,31,32
Moreover, the practice of screening all caregivers for
tobacco use and for child TSE may provide an ideal way for
health professionals to begin discussions about child TSE at
‘‘teachable moments’’ during pediatric health-care visits when
the caregiver is focused on child health. These visits may be
opportunities when caregivers are very open to education about
risks of TSE and benefits to reducing child exposure to tobacco
smoke. Physicians should consider using minimal counseling,
which is a state-of-the-art, brief intervention that lasts less than
3 minutes and has been proven to increase tobacco abstinence
rates. 33
Future research on the longitudinal effects of TSE on
child health and the impact of interventions to reduce TSE will
provide further information about health risks for children and
ideas about ways to mitigate these risks through health messa-
ging and prevention programming.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study
was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Eunice
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-
opment: R01HD083354 (to Dr Mahabee-Gittens).
References
1. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Con-
sequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the
Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2014.
2. Homa DM, Neff LJ, King BA, et al. Vital signs: disparities in
nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke—United States,
1999-2012. MMWR. 2015;64(4):103-108.
3. American Academy of Pediatrics. Policy statement—tobacco use:
a pediatric disease. Pediatrics. 2009;124(5):1474-1487.
4. Mannino DM, Homa DM, Redd SC. Involuntary smoking and
asthma severity in children: data from the Third National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey. Chest. 2002;122(2):409-415.
5. Jacobs-van der Bruggen MAM, Wijga AH, Brunekreef B, et al.
Do parents who smoke underutilize health-care services for their
children? A cross sectional study within the longitudinal PIAMA
study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7(1):83-89.
6. Mahabee-Gittens EM, Gordon JS. Missed opportunities to inter-
vene with caregivers of young children highly exposed to second-
hand tobacco smoke. Prev Med. 2014;69:304-305.
7. Leung GM, Ho LM, Lam TH. Secondhand smoke exposure,
smoking hygiene, and hospitalization in the first 18 months of
life. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(7):687-693.
8. McBride CM, Lozano P, Curry SJ, Rosner D, Grothaus LC. Use
of health services by children of smokers and nonsmokers in a
health maintenance organization. Am J Public Health. 1998;
88(6):897-902.
9. Crombie IK, Wright A, Irvine L, Clark RA, Slane PW. Does
passive smoking increase the frequency of health service contacts
in children with asthma? Thorax. 2001;56(1):9-12.
10. Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. Fast Facts:
2011/12 National Survey of Children’s Health. US Department of
Health and Human Services; 2012. http://www.childhealthda
ta.org/learn/facts. Accessed November 1, 2015.
11. Blumberg SJ, Luke JV, Cynamon ML. Telephone coverage and
health survey estimates: evaluating the need for concern about
wireless substitution. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(5):926-931.
12. Kempf AM, Remington PL. New challenges for telephone survey
research in the twenty-first century. Annual Rev Public Health.
2007;28(1):113-126.
So WHAT? Implications for Health Promotion Practitioners and Researchers
What is already known on this topic?
TSE causes physical health consequences in children including respiratory symptoms, increased infections, and exacerbated asthma. Few studies have examined whether TSE translates into more frequent pediatric health-care utilization.
What does this article add?
TSE contributes to increased use of health-care services. Settings with high volume of children with TSE, including emergency departments, are potential outlets for health messages to inform caregivers about the dangers of child TSE.
What are the implications for health promotion practice or research?
Offering smoking cessation interventions to caregivers in health-care settings with high volume of children with TSE is needed. The practice of screening all caregivers for tobacco use and child TSE during these visits may provide an ideal way for health professionals to begin discussions about child TSE at ‘‘teachable moments’’ during health- care visits when the caregiver is focused on child health.
Merianos et al. 129
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011-2012 National
Survey of Children’s Health frequently asked questions. http://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/slaits/nsch.htm. Published 2012. Updated
2013. Accessed November 1, 2015.
14. Singh GK, Siahpush M, Kogan MD. Disparities in children’s
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the United States,
2007. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):4-13.
15. Benowitz NL. Cotinine as a biomarker of environmental tobacco
smoke exposure. Epidemiol Rev. 1996;18(2):188.
16. Howrylak JA, Spanier AJ, Huang B, et al. Cotinine in children
admitted for asthma and readmission. Pediatrics. 2014;133(2):
e355-e362.
17. Butz AM, Bollinger ME, Halterman JS, et al. Factors associated
with second-hand smoke exposure in young inner-city children
with asthma. J Asthma. 2011;48(5):449-457.
18. US Department of Health and Human Services. The Health
Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A
Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Pre-
vention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and
Health; 2006.
19. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: nonsmo-
kers’ exposure to secondhand smoke—United States, 1999-2008.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(35):1141-1146.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of smoke
free home rules—United States, 1992-1993 and 2010-2011.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(35):765-769.
21. Weitzman M, Cook S, Auinger P, et al. Tobacco smoke exposure
is associated with the metabolic syndrome in adolescents. Circu-
lation. 2005;112(6):862-869.
22. Kum-Nji P, Meloy L, Herrod HG. Environmental tobacco smoke
exposure: prevalence and mechanisms of causation of infections
in children. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5):1745-1754.
23. Mahabee-Gittens EM, Gordon J. Acceptability of tobacco cessa-
tion interventions in the pediatric emergency department. Pediatr
Emerg Care. 2008;24(4):214-216.
24. Mahabee-Gittens EM, Gordon JS, Krugh ME, Henry B, Leonard
AC. A smoking cessation intervention plus proactive quitline
referral in the pediatric emergency department: a pilot study.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2008;10(12):1745-1751.
25. Mahabee-Gittens EM, Khoury JC, Ho M, Stone L, Gordon JS. A
smoking cessation intervention for low-income smokers in the
ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2015;33(8):1056-1061.
26. Aligne CA, Moss ME, Auinger P, Weitzman M. Association of
pediatric dental caries with passive smoking. JAMA. 2003;
289(10):1258-1264.
27. Tong EK, Strouse R, Hall J, Kovac M, Schroeder SA. National
survey of U.S. health professionals’ smoking prevalence, cessa-
tion practices, and beliefs. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010;12(7):724-733.
28. Tremblay M, Cournoyer D, O’Loughlin J. Do the correlates of
smoking cessation counseling differ across health professional
groups? Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(11):1330-1338.
29. Avila-Tang E, Elf JL, Cummings KM, et al. Assessing second-
hand smoke exposure with reported measures. Tob Control. 2013;
22(3):156-163.
30. Prochaska JJ, Grossman W, Young-Wolff KC, Benowitz NL.
Validity of self-reported adult secondhand smoke exposure. Tob
Control. 2015;24(1):48-53.
31. Pbert L, Klein JD, Farber H, et al. State-of-the-art office-based
interventions to eliminate youth tobacco use: the past decade.
Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):734-747.
32. Lustre BL, Dixon CA, Merianos AL, Gordon JS, Zhang B, Maha-
bee-Gittens EM. Assessment of tobacco smoke exposure in the
pediatric emergency department. Prev Med. 2016;85:42-46.
33. Fiore MC, Jaén CR, Baker TB, et al. Treating Tobacco Use and
Dependence: 2008 Update. Rockville, MD: US Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2008.
130 American Journal of Health Promotion 32(1)
Copyright of American Journal of Health Promotion is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.