» Articles » PMID: 20696742

A Qualitative Case Study of Policy Maker Views About the Protection of Children from Smoking in Cars

Overview
Specialty Public Health
Date 2010 Aug 11
PMID 20696742
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: As little is known about the policy making process around smokefree car laws, we aimed to investigate policy makers' views about such laws in a setting where these have not yet been enacted but where published evidence exists on the hazard of smoking in cars and on relevant public support.

Methods: A New Zealand (NZ) case study (of the NZ health policy community) used documents and qualitative in-depth interviews with 62 national-level and District Health Board (DHB)-level policy makers (during 2008-2009). Forty were government or nongovernmental organization officials, 5 DHB board members, and 17 Members of Parliament.

Results: We found very strong themes of policy maker concern for the vulnerability of children and the need for their protection from secondhand smoke. There were mixed reactions to the idea of a smokefree law for cars with children in them. These themes and mixed reactions spanned both the "left" and "right" political parties. The evidence indicates that smokefree car laws are only barely on the NZ national policy making agenda. They are generally not seen as politically attractive, as effective, or easy to implement.

Discussion: In this particular policy setting, there appear to have been assumptions by policy makers about the dominance of adult "privacy" over child protection. The lack of awareness in this particular (NZ) policy community of national-level public support for banning smoking in cars with children and of the progress elsewhere on such laws also suggests the importance of information and advocacy if such laws are to be progressed.

Citing Articles

Frequency and risk factors related to smoking in cars with children present.

Montreuil A, Tremblay M, Cantinotti M, Leclerc B, Lasnier B, Cohen J Can J Public Health. 2015; 106(6):e369-74.

PMID: 26680427 PMC: 5756066. DOI: 10.17269/cjph.106.5070.


Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.

Welch V, Petticrew M, Petkovic J, Moher D, Waters E, White H Int J Equity Health. 2015; 14:92.

PMID: 26450828 PMC: 4599721. DOI: 10.1186/s12939-015-0219-2.


Do health policy advisors know what the public wants? An empirical comparison of how health policy advisors assess public preferences regarding smoke-free air, and what the public actually prefers.

Rosen L, Rier D, Connolly G, Oren A, Landau C, Schwartz R Isr J Health Policy Res. 2013; 2(1):20.

PMID: 23692687 PMC: 3665467. DOI: 10.1186/2045-4015-2-20.


PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity.

Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, ONeill J, Waters E PLoS Med. 2012; 9(10):e1001333.

PMID: 23222917 PMC: 3484052. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333.