Smoke-Free Home and Vehicle Policies Among Community College Smokers

Abstract

Background. Personal smoke-free policies (home and vehicle) reduce secondhand smoke exposure, improve health, and increase quitting among smokers. Overall, 83.0% and 78.1% of Americans report smoke-free homes and vehicles, respectively. However, little is known about such policies among 2-year community college (CC) students, who represent a large, diverse population with higher smoking rates and less negative attitudes toward smoking than 4-year college students. Methods. Prevalence of, and factors associated with, personal smoke-free policies were examined for 2,475 CC smokers enrolled in a national trial of web-assisted tobacco intervention. Results. Few students had smoke-free home policies (20.7%), smoke-free vehicles (17.0%), both smoke-free home and vehicle policy (4.2%), or any policy (home or vehicle; 31.2%). In logistic regression models, having children was associated with a smoke-free home or any policy but not with a smoke-free vehicle, and among participants who had children, only 20% reported a smoke-free home, and only 15% had a smoke-free vehicle. In addition, not living with other smokers, living with parents or roommates/siblings (vs. alone), smoking later than 30 minutes after awakening, believing that smoking affects the health of others, and confidence in quitting were associated with presence of a smoke-free home or any policy; no variables were significantly associated with presence of a smoke-free vehicle. Conclusions. CC students represent a priority population for intervention regarding smoke-free homes and vehicles. Such intervention can decrease exposure of others, including children, and potentially increase the likelihood of quitting in this high-risk population.

Keywords

community college students smoke-free homes smoke-free vehicles smoking tobacco use young adults

Smoke-free home and car policies significantly reduce secondhand smoke exposure and associated health consequences (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006). Furthermore, presence of smoke-free homes is associated with higher quit rates among tobacco users (Gilpin, White, Farkas, & Pierce, 1999; Hyland et al., 2009; Lee & Kahende, 2007; Mills, Messer, Gilpin, & Pierce, 2009) and possibly with decreased use of alternative tobacco products (Zhang, Martinez-Donate, Kuo, & Piper, 2016). Prevalence of personal smoke-free policies has increased over the past decades (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2014; Cheng, Okechukwu, McMillen, & Glantz, 2015), with recent reports indicating that 83.0% of U.S. households have smoke-free home policies (CDC, 2014) and 78.1% have smoke-free vehicle policies (Kruger, Jama, Homa, Babb & King, 2015).

Despite this progress, disparities exist among various subgroups. Smokers are consistently less likely to have smoke-free homes (CDC, 2014; Cheng et al., 2015; Dozier et al., 2014; King, Dube, & Homa, 2013; Kruger et al., 2015) and cars (Cheng et al., 2015; Kruger et al., 2015) relative to nonsmokers. For example, in 2012-2013, among combustible tobacco users, only about half (53.7%) reported smoke-free homes and about one third (34.2%) reported smoke-free vehicles; Kruger et al., 2015). Presence of a young child in the home may attenuate this disparity (Berg, Lessard, et al., 2011; Nabi-Burza et al., 2012; Ossip et al., 2013), though at least one study found that presence of children was not associated with smoke-free vehicles (Cheng et al., 2015). Lower rates of smoke-free home and/or vehicle policies have also been found for younger adults (ages 18-24; King et al., 2013; Cheng et al., 2015) relative to older groups, those with lower (vs. higher) education levels (Cheng et al., 2015; King et al., 2013; Kruger et al., 2015), and those of lower (vs. higher) socioeconomic status (King, Hyland, Borland, McNeill, & Cummings, 2011).

Approximately 20.4 million Americans were enrolled in college in 2013 (U.S. Department of Education, 2016), with most (73%) in the 18 to 24 years age range (U.S. Department of Education, 2014), making this an important target population for addressing secondhand smoke exposure and personal smoking rules. Within this group, 2-year college (“community college” [CC]) students may be a particularly high-risk population for not having personal smoke-free policies. CC students comprise 42% (approximately 7 million) of all undergraduate students and represent a large population of minority, first-generation, low-income students (Kena et al., 2015; Ma & Baum, 2016). CC students are about one third to two times (1.36-1.96) more likely to smoke relative to 4-year college students (Berg, An, et al., 2011; CDC, 2016; Lenk et al., 2012; Sanem, Berg, An, Kirch, & Lust, 2009; VanKim, Nelson, Ehlinger, Lust, & Story, 2012), report less negative attitudes about smoking (Berg, An, et al., 2011), and are less supportive of smoke-free policies (Berg, Lessard, et al., 2011). They typically do not live on campus (VanKim et al., 2012), and thus their home smoking policies are not directly affected by smoke-free campus residence rules.

Although CC students are an important target population for tobacco use and personal smoke-free policies, they are an understudied population (Berg, An, et al., 2011; Hasman, Berryman, & McIntosh, 2013; Prokhorov et al., 2008), and most research has focused on 4-year college students. The current report provides data on prevalence of personal smoke-free policies among a large sample of CC student smokers, and examines factors associated with presence of smoke-free home and car policies.

Method

Participants

Participants were 2,475 CC students who consented to and completed a baseline survey for a trial of web assisted tobacco interventions. Eligibility criteria for the trial were the following: ≥18 years old, enrolled either part-time (1-11 credits) or full-time (≥12 credits) in a community college, smoke ≥5 cigarettes per week, and plan to quit within the next 3 months. In addition, as in our prior trials, participants who quit smoking within 7 days of completing the baseline survey were included if they met all other criteria, as they may have quit either during the enrollment process or in anticipation of joining. Finally, to qualify for the current analyses, participants were required to have answered the primary outcome survey items on smoke-free home and vehicle policies. Participants with missing observations for vehicle (n = 194), indoor smoking, (n = 7), home smokers area (n = 9), and type of home specified as other (n = 11) were excluded (final N = 2,475/2,696).

Procedure

Participants were recruited through CCs, initially in New York State (75.4% of sample; 74.4% of whom were from outside of New York City area), and later expanded to a total of 23 states nationally (n = 1-334 participants/state). Recruitment channels included CC emails, courseware postings, and other on-campus electronic postings, printed materials (e.g., flyers with tear-offs and QR codes, posters, table tent cards), face to face project presence on campuses (e.g., tables at health fairs), engagement with on-campus project “champions,” and a small number of earned or paid media events. Recruitment details are reported separately (McIntosh et al., 2017).

Potential participants entered the study through a link to an electronic screening, consent, and survey application using REDCap® (https://redcap.urmc.rochester.edu/redcap/). Those who met eligibility criteria based on the screening were linked to a consent form to digitally record consent, and then entered the baseline survey. Potential participants who did not qualify were referred to other resources. All procedures were approved by the institutional review board (IRB) at the University of Rochester and by individual CC IRBs where required by the CC.

Measures

Demographic, tobacco use, and personal smoke-free policy data were drawn from the screener and baseline survey, based on prior literature and conceptual relationship with personal smoke-free policy outcomes.

Demographic Items

Demographic items included age (18-24 years, ≥25 years), sex (male, female), race (White, other), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), marital status (married/living with domestic partner, other), parental status (have ≥1 child, no children), living arrangements (live alone, with own family, with parents, with roommates or siblings), type of home (multi-unit [attached home, apartment, dorm], detached home/mobile home), student status (full-time [1-11 credits], part-time [≥12 credits]), and veteran status (yes, no).

Tobacco Use Items

Tobacco use items included daily smoker (yes, no), past 30 day e-cigarette use (yes, no), first cigarette of the day (≤30 minutes, >30 minutes), presence of other home smokers (“Are there smokers living with you?” Yes, no), belief that smoking affects the health of others (“My smoking can affect the health of others”: agree/strongly agree, disagree/strongly disagree/unsure), and self-efficacy for quitting (“How confident are you that you will be able to stop smoking completely this time? Rate this on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being ‘not at all confident’ and 10 being ‘extremely confident’”).

Personal Smoke-Free Policies

A smoke-free home policy was defined as no smoking is allowed and no one actually smokes in the home (Ossip et al. 2013): “Please tell us which best describes how cigarette smoking is handled in your home (home includes porches and balconies)” = “No one is allowed to smoke anywhere” versus all other (“Smoking is permitted in some places or at some times,” “Smoking is permitted anywhere,” “Don’t know”) + “How often does anyone smoke inside your home?” = “Never” versus all other (“Daily,” “Weekly,” “Monthly,” “Less than monthly,” “Don’t know”). Smoke-free vehicle was defined as have a vehicle + no smoking is allowed: “Please tell us which best describes how cigarette smoking is handled in your car” = “No one is allowed to smoke in my car” versus all other (“Special guests are allowed to smoke in my car,” “People are allowed to smoke in my car only if the windows are open,” “People are allowed to smoke in my car at any time,” “Don’t know”).

In addition, open-ended responses to the question, “What do you think might make it difficult for you to quit at this time” were examined for all references to personal smoke-free policy content to provide qualitative examples of students’ experiences.

Data Analysis

The primary outcomes were student report of having a smoke-free home policy (total sample, N = 2,475), having a smoke-free vehicle policy (analyses run only for students who reported having a vehicle; N = 2,109, 85.2% of sample), and having any personal smoke-free policy (smoke-free home or smoke-free vehicle; total sample, N = 2,475). Presence of smoke-free home and car was reported descriptively but not modeled because of the relatively small sample reporting both (N = 89). Univariate analyses were conducted to provide descriptive data for the total sample (%, mean/standard deviation), followed by bivariate analyses (chi squares and t tests) to examine the relationship of individual variables to the three outcomes (smoke-free home, smoke-free vehicle, any personal smoke-free policy). Variables that significantly differed between presence and absence of a personal smoke-free policy for each of the outcomes at p ≤ .10 were considered as candidate variables for multivariable analyses. In addition, the models a priori included parental status (having ≥1 child vs. no children), based on prior work by our group and others (Berg, Lessard, et al., 2011; Nabi-Burza et al., 2012; Ossip et al., 2013), and state in which subject attended a CC (defined as either New York State (NYS; N = 1,875) versus all other or NYS, two other states with the largest number of participants (Illinois, N = 334; Kentucky, N = 108), and all other (n = 1-41/state). Multicollinearity was tested by the variance inflation factor (VIF range 1.02-1.5; no multicollinearity observed). Three final multivariable models were run using full model logistic regressions, one for each outcome, entering a uniform set of independent variables for all analyses. To preserve the number of participants in analyses, a “not applicable” (NA) category was created for variables with ≥10 missing values (for NA, parental status, n = 166; living arrangements, n = 158; sex, n = 36; smoking, n = 76). Data were analyzed using SAS® Version 9.3.

Results

Table 1 presents subject characteristics for the entire sample. Overall, participants were nearly equally split between traditional (<25 years) and nontraditional (≥25 years) college age groups, about two thirds were women (64.7%), 29.5% were non-White, 11.3% were Hispanic, and 39.7% reported having one or more children. Most smoked daily (92.5%) and within 30 minutes of awakening (64.7%), nearly one third used e-cigarettes (30.9%), about half (51.9%) reported other household smokers, most agreed that smoking affects the health of others (90.8%), and participants overall were only somewhat confident about quitting (mean = 6.68 ± 2.07/10 rating).

Table 1.

Subject Characteristics (N = 2,475).

Variable	n (%)
Age
<25 years	1,224 (49.5)
≥25 years	1,249 (50.5)
Sex
Male	862 (35.3)
Female	1,577 (64.7)
Race
White	1,744 (70.5)
Other	731 (29.5)
Ethnicity
Hispanic	279 (11.3)
Other	2,196 (88.7)
Marital status
Married or living with domestic partner	476 (19.2)
Other	1,999 (80.8)
Parental status
Have ≥1 child	917 (39.7)
No children	1,392 (60.3)
Living arrangements
Live alone	320 (13.8)
With own family	902 (38.9)
With parents	738 (31.9)
With roommates/siblings	357 (15.4)
Type of home
Multi-unit (attached home, apartment, dorm)	996 (40.2)
Detached home/mobile home	1,474 (59.4)
Student status
Full-time (12+ credits)	1,794 (72.5)
Part-time (1-11 credits)	681 (27.5)
Veteran status
Yes	158 (6.9)
No	2,132 (93.1)
Smoking
Daily	2,218 (92.5)
Nondaily	181 (7.5)
e-Cigarette use
Yes	764 (30.9)
No	1,710 (69.1)
First cigarette of the day
≤30 minutes	1,600 (64.7)
>30 minutes	873 (35.3)
Other home smokers
Yes	1,280 (51.9)
No	1,188 (48.1)
Believes smoking affects the health of others
Agree/strongly agree	2,241 (90.8)
Disagree/strongly disagree/unsure	227 (9.2)
Smoke-free policy present
Strict smoke-free home	512/2,475 (20.7)
Smoke-free vehicle	358/2,109 (17.0)
Smoke-free home and vehicle	89/2,109 (4.2)
Smoke-free home or vehicle	773/2,475 (31.2)
Confidence in quitting (1-10), M ± SD	6.68 ± 2.07

Prevalence of personal smoke-free policies was low (see Table 1). Only about one fifth (20.7%) reported having a smoke-free home, 17.0% a smoke-free vehicle, and very few (4.2%) reported having both a smoke-free home and a smoke-free vehicle (among participants who owned a vehicle). About one third (31.2%) reported having any personal smoke-free policy, defined as reporting a smoke-free home or a smoke-free vehicle.

Table 2 presents results of bivariate analyses of differences between presence and absence of a personal smoke-free policy using each of the three outcomes (home, vehicle, any). Higher confidence in quitting was significantly associated with presence of personal smoke-free policies across all three outcomes. In addition, younger age, male gender, non-White race, Hispanic ethnicity, not living alone, nondaily smoking, e-cigarette use, smoking more than 30 minutes after awakening, and absence of other home smokers were associated with presence of a home policy. Non-White race, Hispanic ethnicity, not living alone, nondaily smoking, e-cigarette use, smoking more than 30 minutes after awakening, and absence of other home smokers were significantly associated with any personal smoke-free policy. No variables other than confidence were significantly associated with presence of a smoke-free vehicle policy (p < .05 or less for all comparisons). This total set of variables, along with those with p < .10 and state in which subject attended a CC, were entered into the multivariable models.

Table 2.

Results of Bivariate Analyses for Smoke-Free Home, Smoke-Free Vehicle, Smoke-Free Home or Vehicle.

Variable	Strict smoke-free home (N = 2,475)		Smoke-free vehicle (N = 2,109)		Either (N = 2,475)
Variable	% Yes	p	% Yes	p	% Yes	p
Age		<.01		—		<.10
<25 years	23.0		15.1		33.0
≥25 years	18.4		15.8		29.7
Sex		<.05		—		<.10
Male	22.9		16.3		33.5
Female	19.5		14.7		29.9
Race		<.05		—		<.05
White	19.4		15.1		29.8
Other	23.8		16.5		34.8
Ethnicity		<.01		—		.01
Hispanic	27.6		18.4		38.0
Other	19.8		15.1		30.4
Marital status		<.10		—		—
Married/domestic partner	17.9		17.1		30.9
Other	21.4		15.0		31.3
Parental status		—		—		—
Have ≥1 child	20.0		16.4		31.4
No children	20.9		14.9		30.5
Living arrangements		<.01		—		<.01
Live alone	14.7		14.7		24.7
With own family	18.1		17.0		30.0
With parents	28.0		15.1		37.0
With roommates/siblings	16.0		12.8		25.8
Type of home		<.10		—		<.10
Multi-unit	18.4		15.5		29.0
Detached home	22.3		15.4		32.8
Student status		—		—		—
Full-time (12+ credits)	20.0		15.4		30.8
Part-time (1-11 credits)	22.5		15.7		32.5
Veteran status		—		—		—
Yes	16.5		17.7		30.4
No	20.6		15.2		30.7
Smoking		<.01		<.10		<.01
Daily	19.6		15.1		30.3
Nondaily	29.3		20.7		39.8
e-Cigarette use		.05		—		<.05
Yes	23.0		16.4		34.2
No	19.6		15.0		29.9
First cigarette of the day		<.01		—		<.01
≤30 minutes	16.1		15.1		27.1
>30 minutes	29.1		16.1		38.9
Other home smokers		<.01		—		<.01
Yes	8.3		14.5		20.6
No	34.0		16.5		42.8
Believes smoking affects the health of others		—		<.10		<.10
Agree/strongly agree	20.8		15.9		31.9
Disagree/strongly disagree/unsure	19.4		11.1		26.0
Confidence in quitting (1-10)		<.01		<.05		<.01
M (SD)	6.89 (2.11)	6.62 (2.06)	6.92 (2.11)	6.65 (2.06)	6.91 (2.08)	6.58 (2.06)

Table 3 shows results of the multivariable logistic regression models, defining state as New York State versus non–New York State (results for the multistate runs are reported in the text). The Hosmer–Lemeshow chi-square was not significant (p > .23-.53 across models), indicating an adequate fit for the models. Variables associated with greater likelihood of having a smoke-free home policy were having children, living with parents or roommates/siblings versus alone, and not living with other home smokers; smoking within 30 minutes of awakening was associated with lower likelihood of having a smoke-free home policy. Variables associated with having any personal smoke-free policy (home or car) were having children, living with parents versus living alone, not living with other home smokers, believing smoking affects the health of others, and confidence in quitting; again, smoking within 30 minutes was associated with lower likelihood of any policy. None of the variables was associated with presence of a smoke-free vehicle, though odds ratios were generally in the same direction for variables significantly associated with smoke-free home or any policy. To further explore factors associated with smoke-free vehicles, a separate logistic regression was run entering only those variables significantly associated with smoke-free vehicle policy in bivariate analyses; again, none was significantly related to smoke-free vehicle policy in the multivariable analysis. New York State versus non–New York State was not associated with personal smoke-free policies in any runs. The multistate model showed the same pattern of significant findings and similar estimates, though “All Other States” had a higher odds of having a smoke-free vehicle policy relative to NYS (odds ratio = 1.68, 95% confidence interval = [1.10, 2.562]).

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Analyses of Factors Associated With Personal Smoke-Free Policies.

Characteristic	Smoke-free home (N = 2,475), aOR (95% CI)	Smoke-free vehicle (N = 2109), aOR (95% CI)	Any (home or vehicle) (N = 2475), aOR (95% CI)
Age
<25 years	Reference	Reference	Reference
≥25 years	0.83 (0.64, 1.08)	0.99 (0.74, 1.33)	0.87 (0.70, 1.09)
Sex
Female	Reference	Reference	Reference
Male	1.15 (0.91, 1.45)	1.24 (0.95, 1.62)	1.19 (0.98, 1.45)
Race
White	Reference	Reference	Reference
Non-White	1.01 (0.76, 1.33)	0.97 (0.69, 1.36)	1.06 (0.84, 1.35)
Ethnicity
Non-Hispanic	Reference	Reference	Reference
Hispanic	1.21 (0.83, 1.77)	1.20 (0.75, 1.92)	1.10 (0.79, 1.53)
Married
Unmarried	Reference	Reference	Reference
Married	1.25 (0.90, 1.76)	1.02 (0.72, 1.44)	1.25 (0.95, 1.65)
Children
No	Reference	Reference	Reference
Yes	1.56 (1.15, 2.12)*	1.05 (0.75, 1.47)	1.37 (1.06, 1.77)*
Living arrangements
Alone	Reference	Reference	Reference
With own family	1.34 (0.88, 2.04)	1.25 (0.79, 1.98)	1.31 (0.92, 1.86)
With parents	2.62 (1.74, 3.93)*	1.02 (0.66, 1.60)	1.89 (1.35, 2.64)*
With roommates/siblings	1.75 (1.11, 2.76)*	0.88 (0.53, 1.46)	1.40 (0.97, 2.03)
Type of home
Detached home	Reference	Reference	Reference
Multi-unit	0.83 (0.65, 1.05)	1.00 (0.77, 1.31)	0.87 (0.72, 1.07)
Daily smoking
Yes	Reference	Reference	Reference
No	1.20 (0.82, 1.74)	0.73 (0.47, 1.14)	0.88 (0.63, 1.23)
e-Cigarette user
No	Reference	Reference	Reference
Yes	1.11 (0.88, 1.40)	1.16 (0.89, 1.51)	1.16 (0.95, 1.41)
First cigarette of the day
>30 minutes	Reference	Reference	Reference
≤30 minutes	0.59 (0.47, 0.73)*	0.97 (0.75, 1.26)	0.69 (0.57, 0.84)*
Other home smokers
Yes	Reference	Reference	Reference
No	6.13 (4.80, 7.82)*	1.12 (0.88, 1.44)	3.03 (2.51, 3.66)*
Believes smoking affects the health of others
Disagree	Reference	Reference	Reference
Agree	1.30 (0.89, 1.89)	1.55 (0.96, 2.50)	1.52 (1.09, 2.11)*
State of residence
Non–New York State	Reference	Reference	Reference
New York State	1.02 (0.80, 1.31)	0.91 (0.69, 1.18)	0.93 (0.75, 1.14)
Confidence in quitting	1.05 (0.99, 1.10)	1.06 (1.00, 1.13)	1.07 (1.02, 1.12)*

Note. aOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05.

When queried about barriers to quitting in an open-ended question, a total of 18 responses were identified with content relevant to home smoking and 29 related to smoking in vehicles. Open and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 2007) was conducted by a single coder and checked by a second coder for consistency, with 100% agreement. Responses are summarized in Table 4. Themes around home smoking were smoking while watching television, movies, or playing video games at home, being around others smoking in the home, and the fact that smoking was allowed in the home. Themes related to vehicle smoking were the behaviors of smoking while commuting to school and/or work, smoking while driving (in general), addiction, and stress reduction while driving.

Table 4.

Student Responses Regarding Barriers to Quitting Relevant to Home and Vehicle Smoking.

Type	Theme	Sample responses
Home smoking (N = 18 responses)	Smoke while watching TV, video games, movies at home	I really enjoy smoking while watching movies/shows at home . . . in my down time when I am relaxing
	Smoke while watching TV, video games, movies at home	While watching TV or playing video games I feel that I have to smoke
	Other home smokers/visitors who smoke	Everyone who lives in this house smokes in this house
		Boyfriend’s family smokes in the house
		My girlfriend smokes and she smokes indoors
		People in my house smoking in my face
		My husband/wife smokes at home
	Smoking is allowed in the home	That I can smoke in my home
	Smoking is allowed in the home	My residence has been a smoking environment for over 3 years
Vehicle (N = 29 responses)	Habit—Commuting	Habit of smoking in the car on the way to work and school
		I have long commutes to school and when I am in the car by myself
		I usually only smoke during my drive to and from school or other long distances in the car
	Habit—Other	Just the habit of having one when driving
		When I drive is the hardest because that is when I mostly smoke
		Because that is how I started smoking with my friend in her car
	Addiction	I smoked a lot in my car to hide it from others so now I am addicted to smoking while driving
	Addiction	I smoke . . . whenever I am in the car commuting I constantly smoke. . . . I am so addicted
	Stress reduction	Smoking for me is . . . stress relief while driving
	Stress reduction	[Smoking in my car] is a stress reliever for me

Discussion

To our knowledge, no prior study has examined prevalence of and factors associated with personal smoke-free policies specifically among CC smokers. In this current large sample of CC smokers motivated to quit, prevalence of such policies was very low. Only about one in five (20.7%) reported a smoke-free home, even fewer reported a smoke-free vehicle (17.0%), and very few reported a complete smoke-free policy (smoke-free home and vehicle; 4.2%). Just under one third reported any policy (smoke-free home or vehicle; 31.2%). These rates are all considerably lower than the national average overall (83.0% for smoke-free homes and 78.1% for smoke-free vehicles; CDC, 2014; Kruger et al., 2015), for smokers (53.7% for smoke-free homes and 34.2% for smoke-free vehicles; Kruger et al., 2015), and for young adults ages 18 to 24 years (74.7% for homes and 73.2% for vehicles; Cheng, et al., 2015). Furthermore, as the current sample reflected smokers already motivated to quit, it is possible that personal smoke-free policies would be even lower among CC students not motivated to quit. The combination of higher tobacco use rates in CC students (Berg, An, et al., 2011; CDC, 2016; Lenk et al., 2012; Sanem et al., 2009; VanKim et al., 2012) and the current findings of markedly lower personal smoke-free policies support the call for a focus on CC students as a priority population for intervention (Berg, An, et al., 2011; Hasman et al., 2013; Prokhorov et al., 2008).

Having children was associated with having a smoke-free home or any smoke-free policy, which is consistent with at least some prior research (Ossip et al., 2013), though in contrast to other research with college students (Berg, Lessard, et al., 2011). However, only about 20% of CC students with children reported a smoke-free home policy. Furthermore, having children was not associated with a smoke-free car policy, and only about 15% of parents had a smoke-free car policy. It is possible that some parents may have refrained from smoking while a child was in the vehicle, though this was not assessed, but any smoking produces sustained thirdhand smoke to which children are likely particularly vulnerable (Nabi-Burza et al., 2012). The lack of a relationship between having children and presence of smoke-free vehicle is in contrast to prior research with a combined sample of university and technical college students (Berg, Lessard, et al., 2011) and with smoking parents seen in pediatric practices (Nabi-Burza et al., 2012). However, these results are consistent with findings from Cheng et al. (2015), who also reported an association between presence of children and smoke-free home—but not smoke-free vehicle—policies for a large national sample of adults ages 18+ years. This inconsistent pattern of findings regarding children and personal smoke-free policies may reflect differences in populations studied, and none specifically focused on CC smokers. Overall, these findings indicate the need to specifically target CC students with children for interventions to implement complete personal smoke-free policies.

Presence of home smokers increased the risk of not having home or any personal smoking policies, though living alone relative to living with parents or roommates/siblings was also associated with not having personal smoking policies. Prior research indicates that living with parents who implement smoke-free policies increases the likelihood of the adult child adopting smoke-free home rules once living independently (Albers, Biener, Siegel, Cheng, & Rigotti, 2009), suggesting the importance of targeting parents in general for implementation of personal smoke-free rules (Winickoff et al., 2013, 2014). Those who were more addicted were less likely to implement smoke-free home or any policies, which may reflect difficulty in refraining from smoking. That higher confidence in quitting was associated with having any policy is consistent with prior research indicating higher quit rates among those living in smoke-free environments (Gilpin et al., 1999; Hyland et al., 2009; Lee & Kahende, 2007; Mills et al., 2009). The relation between belief in effects of smoking on others and any policy may indicate the value of awareness raising interventions among CC students who as a group tend to have less negative attitudes about smoking (Berg et al., 2011).

Notably, none of the variables examined was associated with presence of a smoke-free vehicle policy in the multivariable analysis. Fewer studies are available on factors associated with smoke-free vehicles relative to homes, particularly in college-aged populations and among smokers. Some prior studies found associations between sociodemographic or tobacco use variables (e.g., White race, younger age, female, heavier smoker) and lower likelihood of a smoke-free vehicle policy (Cheng et al., 2015; Kruger et al., 2015; Nabi-Burza et al., 2012), though, again, these were based on national samples or parents, who may have different patterns from CC smokers. In the current study, comments from the small subsample of students who responded to an open-ended item suggest that further research on the importance of habit and stress reduction associated with smoking while driving for CC students, who generally commute rather than living on campus (VanKim et al., 2012), could point to opportunities for intervention.

Smoke-free campus housing provided by an increasing number of 4-year colleges and universities may protect students from initiating smoking as well as from secondhand smoke exposure, though few CCs provide on-campus housing (VanKim et al., 2012). However, presence of broader community clean indoor air laws have been associated with higher likelihood of implementing voluntary smoke-free home and car policies overall and especially among those with less than a full college degree (Cheng et al., 2015; Monson & Arsenault, 2017; Zhang, Martinez-Donate, & Jones, 2013). In addition, media campaigns have been associated with increased likelihood of smoke-free home policies across all educational levels (Zhang et al., 2013). In the current study, believing that smoking affects others was associated with presence of any policy, suggesting potential benefit of awareness raising campaigns. Interventions at the community level to implement and promote such media campaigns, as well as clean indoor air policies, may be particularly relevant to CC students who represent a diverse, community-dwelling population. Among the small subsample of students who commented on smoke-free homes, responses indicated that presence of smoking in the home was a barrier to quitting.

Limitations of the current study are the nonrandom sample of CC students, which albeit sizable, may not reflect CC students in general. In addition, the majority of participants are from New York State, with the remainder from 23 states nationally. Thus, findings may not be representative of community college students nationally, though attending a New York State CC versus other state CCs was not associated with presence of personal smoke-free policies in multivariable analyses in the current sample. In the multistate model, comparing the three states with the largest subject enrollment and “all other states” to NYS, “all other states” had a higher odds of having smoke-free vehicle policy, indicating that there may be variability across states meriting further study. The small numbers of participants from each of the “all other states” precludes further analysis in the current sample. Similarly, the current sample was restricted to smokers who were motivated to quit, which may not generalize to nonsmoking CC students (nor to CC smokers not motivated to quit), though smokers are an important target group, as they represent a high-risk population for not having personal smoke-free policies (CDC, 2014; Cheng et al., 2015; Dozier et al., 2014; King et al., 2013; Kruger et al., 2015). Finally, presence of smoke-free home and vehicle policies was obtained by self-report only, which may have overestimated the prevalence of such policies, though prior research has indicated a high correlation between parental report of smoke-free home policies and child cotinine levels, at least suggesting the accuracy of self-report (Spencer, Blackburn, Bonas, Coe, & Dolan, 2005).

Overall, the current study found a very low prevalence of smoke-free home and vehicle policies among a large sample of CC smokers motivated to quit, indicating that this is a priority population for intervention. Such intervention can decrease exposure of others, including children, to secondhand smoke, and potentially increase the likelihood of quitting in this large, diverse population that already has higher smoking rates relative to their 4-year college student counterparts.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their appreciation to the community colleges who participated in this project. The authors also wish to acknowledge the following staff and undergraduate students who assisted with this project: D. Ververs, R. Block, K. Fogarty, E. Hancock, A. Kazimir, and E. Porter.

Authors’ Note

The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health, the funding agency.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01CA152093).

References

Albers

A. B.

Biener

Siegel

Cheng

D. M.

Rigotti

N. A.

(2009). Impact of parental home smoking policies on policy choices of independently living young adults. Tobacco Control, 18, 245-248.

Berg

C. J.

L. C.

Thomas

J. L.

Lust

K. A.

Sanem

J. R.

Swan

D. W.

Ahluwalia

J. S.

(2011). Smoking patterns, attitudes and motives: Unique characteristics among 2-year versus 4-year college students. Health Education Research, 26, 614-623.

Berg

C. J.

Lessard

Parelkar

P. P.

Thrasher

Kegler

M. C.

Escoffery

. . . Ahluwalia

J. S.

(2011). College student reactions to smoking bans in public, on campus and at home. Health Education Research, 26, 106-118. doi:10.1093/her/cyq076

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Prevalence of smokefree home rules—United States, 1992-1993 and 2010-2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63(35), 765-769. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6335a1.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2013-2014. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65(27), 685-691. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6527a1.htm

Cheng

K. W.

Okechukwu

C. A.

McMillen

Glantz

(2015). Association between clean indoor air laws and voluntary smokefree rules in homes and cars. Tobacco Control, 24, 168-174. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051121

Dozier

A. M.

Diaz

Guido

Quiñones

Monegro

McIntosh

Fisher

S. G.

Ossip

D. J.

(2014). Cohort study of smoke-free homes in economically disadvantaged communities in the Dominican Republic. Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública, 35(1), 30-37.

Gilpin

E. A.

White

M. A.

Farkas

A. J.

Pierce

J. P.

(1999). Home smoking restrictions: Which smokers have them and how they are associated with smoking behavior. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 1, 153-162. doi:10.1080/14622299050011261

Hasman

Berryman

McIntosh

(2013). NLM Informationist Grant—Web assisted tobacco intervention for community college students. Journal of eScience Librarianship, 2(1), Article 8. doi:10.7191/jeslib.2013.1034

10.

Hyland

Higbee

Travers

M. J.

Van Deusen

Bansal-Travers

King

Cummings

(2009). Smoke-free homes and smoking cessation and relapse in a longitudinal population of adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11, 614-618. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp022

11.

Kena

Musu-Gillette

Robinson

Wang

Rathbun

Zhang

. . . Dunlop Velez

(2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

12.

King

B. A.

Dube

S. R.

Homa

D. M.

(2013). Smoke-free rules and secondhand smoke exposure in homes and vehicles among US adults, 2009-2010. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E79. doi:10.5888/pcd10.120218

13.

King

B. A.

Hyland

A. J.

Borland

McNeill

Cummings

K. M.

(2011). Socioeconomic variation in the prevalence, introduction, retention, and removal of smoke-free policies among smokers: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 8, 411-434. doi:10.3390/ijerph8020411

14.

Kruger

Jama

Homa

D. M.

Babb

S. D.

King

B. A.

(2015). Smoke-free home and vehicle rules by tobacco use status among US adults. Preventive Medicine, 78, 9-13. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.06.004

15.

Lee

Kahende

(2007). Factors associated with successful smoking cessation in the United States, 2000. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1503-1509. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.083527

16.

Lenk

Rode

Fabian

Bernat

Klein

Forster

(2012). Cigarette use among young adults: Comparisons between two-year college students, four-year college students, and those not in college. Journal of American College Health, 60, 303-308.

17.

Baum

(2016). Trends in community colleges: Enrollment, prices, student debt, and completion (College Board Research Brief). Retrieved from http://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/trends-in-community-colleges-research-brief.pdf

18.

McIntosh

Johnson

Wall

Prokhorov

Calabro

Ververs

. . . Ossip

D. J.

(2017). Recruitment of community college students into a Web Assisted Tobacco Intervention study. JMIR Research Protocols, 6(5), e79.

19.

Mills

A. L.

Messer

Gilpin

E. A.

Pierce

J. P.

(2009). The effect of smoke-free homes on adult smoking behavior: A review. American Journal of Public Health, 11, 1131-1141. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntp122

20.

Monson

Arsenault

(2017). Effects of enactment of legislative (public) smoking bans on voluntary home smoking restrictions: A review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 19, 141-148. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntw171

21.

Nabi-Burza

Regan

Drehmer

Ossip

Rigotti

Hipple

. . . Winickoff

J. P.

(2012). Parents smoking in their cars with children present. Pediatrics, 130, 1471-1478. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0334

22.

Ossip

D. J.

Chang

Nabi-Burza

Drehmer

Finch

Hipple

. . . Winickoff

J. P.

(2013). Strict smoke-free home policies among smoking parents in pediatric settings. Academic Pediatrics, 13, 517-523. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2013.06.003

23.

Prokhorov

A. V.

Yost

Mullin-Jones

de Moor

Ford

K. H.

Marani

. . . Emmons

K. M.

(2008). “Look at your Health”: Outcomes associated with a computer-assisted smoking cessation counseling intervention for community college students. Addictive Behavior, 33, 757-771.

24.

Sanem

J. R.

Berg

C. J.

L. C.

Kirch

M. A.

Lust

K. A.

(2009). Differences in tobacco use among two-year and four-year college students in Minnesota. Journal of American College Health, 58, 151-159.

25.

Spencer

Blackburn

Bonas

Coe

Dolan

(2005). Parent reported home smoking bans and toddler (18-30 month) smoke exposure: A cross sectional survey. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 90, 670-674. doi:10.1136/adc.2004.054684

26.

Strauss

Corbin

(2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics, 2014 (NCES 2016-006; Chapter 3). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/

28.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2014, Spring). Enrollment component. Digest of Education Statistics 2014, table 303.50. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp

29.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2006). The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: A report of the surgeon general. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/fullreport.pdf

30.

VanKim

N. A.

Nelson

Ehlinger

Lust

Story

(2012). Understanding young adult physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use in community colleges and 4-year post-secondary institutions: A cross-sectional analysis of epidemiological surveillance data. BMC Public Health, 10, 208.

31.

Winickoff

J. P.

Nabi-Burza

Chang

Finch

Regan

Wasserman

. . . Rigotti

N. A.

(2013). Implementation of a parental tobacco control intervention in pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 132, 109-117.

32.

Winickoff

J. P.

Nabi-Burza

Chang

Regan

Drehmer

Finch

. . . Rigotti

N. A.

(2014). Sustainability of a parental tobacco control intervention in pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 134, 933-941.

33.

Zhang

Martinez-Donate

A. P.

Jones

N. R.

(2013). Educational disparities in home smoking bans among households with underage children in the United States: Can tobacco control policies help narrow the gap? Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 1978-1987. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt090

34.

Zhang

Martinez-Donate

A. P.

Kuo

Piper

(2016). Beyond cigarette smoking: Smoke-free home rules and use of alternative tobacco products. Perspectives in Public Health, 136, 30-33. doi:10.1177/1757913915600194