Public, private and personal: Qualitative research on policymakers' opinions on smokefree interventions to protect children in 'private' spaces

BMC Public Health

Research Article

Richard Edwards¹  Gareth Rouch¹  Nick Wilson¹  Tolotea Lanumata¹  Sheena Hudson¹  George Thomson¹  Heather Gifford² 

[1] University of Otago, Wellington, Box 7343, Wellington, New Zealand;Whakauae Research Services, Box 102, Whanganui, New Zealand;

关键词: Tobacco Control;    Private Activity;    Seat Belt;    Secondhand Smoke;    Private Space;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-10-797

 received in 2010-05-05, accepted in 2010-12-31,  发布年份 2010

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundGovernments use law to constrain aspects of private activities for purposes of protecting health and social wellbeing. Policymakers have a range of perceptions and beliefs about what is public or private. An understanding of the possible drivers of policymaker decisions about where government can or should intervene for health is important, as one way to better guide appropriate policy formation. Our aim was to identify obstacles to, and opportunities for, government smokefree regulation of private and public spaces to protect children. In particular, to seek policymaker opinions on the regulation of smoking in homes, cars and public parks and playgrounds in a country with incomplete smokefree laws (New Zealand).MethodsCase study, using structured interviews to ask policymakers (62 politicians and senior officials) about their opinions on new smokefree legislation for public and private places. Supplementary data was obtained from the Factiva media database, on the views of New Zealand local authority councillors about policies for smokefree outdoor public places.ResultsOverall, interviewees thought that government regulation of smoking in private places was impractical and unwise. However, there were some differences on what was defined as 'private', particularly for cars. Even in public parks, smoking was seen by some as a 'personal' decision, and unlikely to be amenable to regulation. Most participants believed that educative, supportive and community-based measures were better and more practical means of reducing smoking in private places, compared to regulation.ConclusionsThe constrained view of the role of regulation of smoking in public and private domains may be in keeping with current political discourse in New Zealand and similar Anglo-American countries. Policy and advocacy options to promote additional smokefree measures include providing a better voice for childrens' views, increasing information to policymakers about the harms to children from secondhand smoke and the example of adult smoking, and changing the culture for smoking around children.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
© Rouch et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.