Smoke-free home restrictions in Armenia and Georgia: motives, barriers and secondhand smoke reduction behaviors

Authors

Carla J. Berg
Ana Dekanosidze, Georgia National Center for Disease Control and Public Health, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Varduhi Hayrumyan, Turpanjian College of Health Sciences, American University of Armenia, Yerevan, Armenia.
Cassidy R. LoParco, Department of Prevention and Community Health, Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington Cancer Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Arevik Torosyan, National Institute of Health named after academician S. Avdalbekyan, MOH, Yerevan, Armenia.
Lilit Grigoryan, National Institute of Health named after academician S. Avdalbekyan, MOH, Yerevan, Armenia.
Alexander Bazarchyan, National Institute of Health named after academician S. Avdalbekyan, MOH, Yerevan, Armenia.
Regine Haardörfer, Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Michelle C. Kegler, Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Date

7-27-2023

Journal

European journal of public health

DOI

10.1093/eurpub/ckad129

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Promoting smoke-free homes (SFHs) in Armenia and Georgia is timely given high smoking and secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) rates and recent national smoke-free policy implementation. This study examined theoretical predictors (e.g. motives, barriers) of SFH status, and among those without SFHs, past 3-month SFH attempts and intent to establish SFHs in the next 3 months. METHODS: Multilevel logistic regression analyzed these outcomes using 2022 survey data from 1467 adults (31.6% past-month smokers) in Armenia (n = 762) and Georgia (n = 705). Correlates of interest included SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives and barriers; models controlled for country, community, age, sex, smoking status and other smokers in the home. RESULTS: In this sample, 53.6% had SFHs (Armenia: 39.2%; Georgia: 69.2%). Among those without SFHs, one-fourth had partial restrictions, no smokers in the home and/or recent SFH attempts; 35.5% intended to establish SFHs; and ∼70% of multiunit housing residents supported smoke-free buildings. We documented common SHSe reduction behaviors (opening windows, limiting smoking areas), SFH motives (prevent smell, protect children/nonsmokers) and barriers (smokers' resistance). Correlates of SFHs were being from Georgia, other smokers in the home, fewer SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives and fewer barriers. Among participants without SFHs, correlates of recent SFH attempts were other smokers in the home, greater SHSe reduction behaviors and SFH motives, and fewer barriers; correlates of SFH intentions were being female, greater SHSe reduction behaviors, greater motives, and fewer barriers. CONCLUSIONS: SFH interventions should address motives, barriers and misperceptions regarding SHSe reduction behaviors. Moreover, smoke-free multiunit housing could have a great population impact.

APA Citation

Berg, Carla J.; Dekanosidze, Ana; Hayrumyan, Varduhi; LoParco, Cassidy R.; Torosyan, Arevik; Grigoryan, Lilit; Bazarchyan, Alexander; Haardörfer, Regine; and Kegler, Michelle C., "Smoke-free home restrictions in Armenia and Georgia: motives, barriers and secondhand smoke reduction behaviors" (2023). GW Authored Works. Paper 3017.
https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/gwhpubs/3017

Department

Prevention and Community Health