Smoke-free rules in homes and cars among smokers and nonsmokers in Minnesota

Michael J. Parks, John H. Kingsbury, Raymond G. Boyle, Sharrilyn Evered

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    7 Scopus citations


    We examined prevalence and predictors of comprehensive smokefree household rules (ie, smoke-free homes and cars) among smokers and nonsmokers in Minnesota. Data came from the 2014 Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey; weighted analyses consisted of descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Most adult smokers implemented home-only smoke-free rules (43%) while most nonsmokers implemented comprehensive smoke-free rules (home and car; 85%). Comprehensive smokefree rules were more common among people with high socioeconomic status (SES), married people, and people who did not live with a smoker; those with a child in the home were more likely to implement smoke-free homes but not smoke-free cars. Public health practitioners should focus on addressing the majority of smokers who do not implement comprehensive smoke-free household rules, such as low-SES populations, and addressing caregivers who do not implement smoke-free car rules.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Article number170355
    JournalPreventing Chronic Disease
    Issue number3
    StatePublished - Mar 1 2018

    Bibliographical note

    Funding Information:
    This research was funded by ClearWay Minnesota, an independent nonprofit organization, the Statewide Health Improvement Program (SHIP), and State Core Tobacco Control funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC-RFA-DP15-1509 (1U58DP006005-01). SHIP and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of the data, writing of the article, or decision to submit for publication.

    Publisher Copyright:
    © Preventing Chronic Disease, 2018.


    Dive into the research topics of 'Smoke-free rules in homes and cars among smokers and nonsmokers in Minnesota'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this