Advertising Disclaimer »

Due to system maintenance, Pediatrics will be temporarily unavailable for individual login from August 7 at 5:00 pm (CT) to August 9 at 5:00 pm (CT). We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your patience.
Article

US Prevalence and Trends in Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Children and Adolescents With Asthma

Brian K. Kit, Alan E. Simon, Debra J. Brody and Lara J. Akinbami
Pediatrics March 2013, 131 (3) 407-414; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2328
Download PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine exposure to tobacco smoke products (TSPs), environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), and in-home smoke among youth with asthma in the United States.

METHODS: Nationally representative, cross-sectional data from 2250 youth aged 4 to 19 years with current asthma in the 1988–1994, 1999–2004, and 2005–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) were analyzed. Outcomes were use of TSPs (serum cotinine level >10 ng/mL or self-reported recent use of cigarettes, cigars, or pipes) and, among non-TSP users, ETS exposure (serum cotinine ≥0.05 ng/mL) and in-home smoke exposure (reported). Multiple logistic regression analyses assessed the associations between the outcomes and age, gender, race/ethnicity, and family income.

RESULTS: Among adolescents (aged 12–19 years) with asthma in 2005–2010, 17.3% reported TSP use. Among youth (aged 4–19 years) with asthma who did not use TSPs, 53.2% were exposed to ETS and 17.6% had in-home smoke exposure. Among low-income youth, 70.1% and 28.1% had exposure to ETS and in-home smoke, respectively. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, higher prevalence of exposure to ETS and in-home smoke persisted among low-income youth. Between 1988–1994 and 2005–2010, there was a decline in ETS and in-home smoke exposure (both P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS: ETS exposure among youth with asthma declined between 1988–1994 and 2005–2010, but a majority remained exposed in 2005–2010, with higher exposure among low-income youth. More than 1 in 6 youth with asthma in 2005–2010 were exposed to in-home smoke and a similar portion of adolescents used TSPs.

KEY WORDS
  • Abbreviations:
    aOR —
    adjusted odds ratio
    CI —
    confidence interval
    ETS —
    environmental tobacco smoke
    MEC —
    mobile examination center
    PIR —
    poverty-income ratio
    TSP —
    tobacco smoke product

    • What’s Known on This Subject:

    Among youth with asthma, tobacco smoke exposure causes increased asthma morbidity. Little is known about changes over time in tobacco smoke exposure among youth with asthma in a national sample.

    What This Study Adds:

    Our analysis reveals a decrease in environmental tobacco smoke exposure among children and adolescents with current asthma in the United States from 1988–1994 to 2005–2010, but a majority of youth with asthma remain exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.

    Children and adolescents with asthma benefit from reduced exposure to tobacco smoke.1 Among youth with asthma, exposure to tobacco smoke, either by use of tobacco smoke products (TSPs) or by environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), causes increased asthma morbidity including reduced lung function, exacerbation of asthma symptoms, and higher health care utilization.2–13 Current asthma treatment guidelines recommend avoiding exposure to tobacco smoke, including both active smoking and ETS.14

    Children with asthma are more vulnerable to adverse outcomes from tobacco smoke exposure, but the extent to which this population is exposed to tobacco smoke on a national level has not been quantified. In this study in children and adolescents with asthma, we sought to characterize the use of TSPs and, among non-TSP users, exposure to ETS on the basis of a biological biomarker and in-home smoke on the basis of proxy- and self-report. Also, we aimed to describe trends in exposure to ETS and in-home smoke among children and adolescents with asthma in the United States.

    Methods

    Study Design

    Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used. NHANES is a series of cross-sectional health examination surveys consisting of an in-home interview and an examination at a mobile examination center (MEC). Each survey is a nationally representative sample of the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population and uses a complex, stratified, multistage probability cluster sampling design. NHANES 2005–2010 is the primary data source for this analysis. Data from NHANES III (1988–1994) and NHANES 1999–2004 were used for trend analyses. For all analyses, children and adolescents with current asthma aged 4 to 19 years were included. Informed consent was obtained for persons 18 years and older. For those younger than 18 years, written parental consent was obtained, and child assent was obtained for those aged 7 to 17 years. The surveys were approved by the National Center for Health Statistics Ethics Review Board. Examination response rate ranged from 75% to 80%. Further details on the design, response rates, and implementation of the surveys are described elsewhere.15,16

    During the in-home interview, participants aged ≥16 years, or proxy respondents (usually a parent) for younger participants, were asked detailed questions regarding socioeconomic characteristics, health-related behaviors, and health history. To assess reported in-home smoke exposure in NHANES III, participants or their proxy were asked, “Does anyone who lives here smoke cigarettes in the home?” Beginning in 1999, the question was modified as follows: “Does anyone who lives here smoke cigarettes, cigars, or pipes anywhere inside this home?” Current asthma status was defined on the basis of an affirmative response to 2 questions: “Has a doctor or health professional ever told you that you have asthma?” and “Do you still have asthma?”

    In the MEC, venipuncture was performed and adolescents aged ≥12 years were asked (without a proxy) about use of products containing nicotine, including cigarettes, pipes, cigars, chewing tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches, and nicotine gum in the past 5 days. The blood specimen obtained in the MEC was subsequently analyzed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Environmental Health to determine serum cotinine values, a metabolite of nicotine with a half-life of 16 to 19 hours,17 by using methods described elsewhere.18 In NHANES III, children aged ≥4 years had cotinine measured, and in subsequent surveys those aged ≥3 years had cotinine measured. For comparability, the sample for this analysis was restricted to those between the ages of 4 and 19 years. The use of TSPs among adolescents was defined as self-reported use of cigarettes, pipes, or cigars in the past 5 days or a serum cotinine level >10 ng/mL, a cotinine cutoff used to define smoking in previous studies.19 Thus, both self-reported and measured data were used to define the use of TSPs but only one of the criteria needed to be met. Approximately 85% of adolescents identified as using TSPs were identified by self-report; the remaining were identified on the basis of serum cotinine values.

    Participants with a serum cotinine level ≥0.05 ng/mL, but ≤10 ng/mL, and who did not use TSPs were considered to be exposed to ETS.19,20 In this analysis, as in previous studies, ETS and TSP are mutually exclusive categories. An affirmative response to the question regarding household members who smoke inside the home was used to categorize youth as having in-home smoke exposure. Similar to ETS, adolescents who used TSPs were not included in analyses of in-home smoke exposure. A total of 4 youth with reported in-home smoke exposure did not have laboratory evidence of ETS exposure. Because it is possible for in-home smoking to be episodic and serum cotinine has a half-life of 16 to 19 hours, this discrepancy was considered plausible and data for these youth were retained.

    Age was grouped as 4–11 years and 12–19 years. Race/ethnicity was defined on the basis of self-reported responses and categorized as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Mexican American, and “other,” including multiracial. The “other” group was included in overall estimates but was not separately reported. Family income data collected during the in-home interview were used to calculate the poverty-income ratio (PIR), a ratio of family income to the federal poverty threshold adjusted for family size. PIR was dichotomized as <1.85 and ≥1.85. A PIR of <1.85, herein referred to as low income, reflected income eligibility for participation in some federal programs, including reduced-price lunches,21 during our study period.

    Statistical Methods

    Statistical analyses were performed by using SAS software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC), and SUDAAN software, version 10.0 (RTI, Research Triangle Park, NC), was used to account for the complex design of the survey. Sample weights, which account for differential probabilities of selection, nonresponse, and noncoverage were used to obtain estimates representative of the civilian noninstitutionalized US population. Statistical significance was determined at a P value of <.05.

    Prevalence estimates and SEs were calculated to assess the use of TSPs and, among non-TSP users, exposure to ETS and in-home smoke overall and by gender, race/ethnicity, age, and family income. Multivariate logistic regression models were conducted to examine the associations of the dependent variables (exposure to ETS, in-home smoke exposure, and use of TSPs) with the independent variables of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and family income. The independent variables were selected for inclusion because they have been previously described correlates of smoking or smoke exposure. All covariates were analyzed as categorical variables. To test for linear trends in ETS exposure and in-home smoke exposure over the 3 survey periods (1988–1994, 1999–2004, and 2005–2010), the null hypothesis of no linear trend was examined by using orthogonal contrast matrices.22 In addition, linear trends were considered in all age, gender, race/ethnicity, and family income subgroups. The overall linear trend in use of TSPs among adolescents was examined.

    Analytic Sample

    Children and adolescents aged 4–19 years in NHANES 2005–2010 with both interview and examination data were assessed for current asthma status (n = 9546). Of these, 32 were missing data on current asthma status. There were 1048 children and adolescents with current asthma in 2005–2010 who were eligible for inclusion into this study. A total of 186 children and adolescents with current asthma were excluded because of missing serum cotinine levels; 5 adolescents who used non-TSP nicotine products (eg, chewing tobacco and snuff) were also excluded. Fewer older, compared with younger, and Mexican American, compared with non-Hispanic white, children were excluded because of missing laboratory data, but there were few other differences between those with and without missing data. Although publicly available NHANES sample weights are adjusted for unit nonresponse, they are not adjusted for item nonresponse. To assess for possible nonresponse bias to the laboratory component of NHANES, we examined the potential impact of nonresponse by adjusting the original examination weights according to methods published by Lohr.23 The use of these adjusted weights led to only small differences in point and variance estimates; therefore, we present in this article all estimates with the use of the publicly available sample weights.

    Results

    The characteristics of the analytic sample are shown in Table 1. Overall, 17.3% (standard error [SE]: 2.5%) of adolescents with asthma used a TSP (Table 2); and among low-income adolescents with asthma, 23.3% (SE: 3.4%) used a TSP in 2005–2010. After adjustment for gender and race/ethnicity, the odds of a low-income adolescent using a TSP was 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.0, 5.1) compared with adolescents in the higher income category (P = .055).

    View this table:
    TABLE 1

    Sample Sizes and Characteristics of Youth Aged 4 to 19 Years With Current Asthma

    View this table:
    TABLE 2

    Prevalence and ORs of TSP Use Among Adolescents Aged 12 to 19 Years With Current Asthma, 2005–2010

    Data presented in Tables 3, 4, and Fig 1 examine exposure to ETS and in-home smoke among youth who did not use TSPs. Among children and adolescents with asthma, 53.2% (SE: 3.7%) were exposed to ETS in 2005–2010 (Table 3). Among low-income children and adolescents with asthma, 70.1% (SE: 2.9%) were exposed to ETS. In multivariate logistic regression analysis controlled for age, gender, and race/ethnicity, the adjusted odds of ETS exposure were higher among low-income youth with asthma (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]; 4.1; 95% CI: 2.7, 6.3) compared with youth with asthma in the higher income category. The adjusted odds of ETS exposure were lower among Mexican American (aOR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.2, 0.6) than among non-Hispanic youth but did not otherwise differ statistically by race/ethnicity or by age and gender.

    View this table:
    TABLE 3

    Prevalence and ORs of ETS Exposure Among Non–TSP-Using Youth With Current Asthma, 2005–2010

    View this table:
    TABLE 4

    Prevalence and ORs of In-Home Household Smoke Exposure Among Non–TSP-Using Youth With Current Asthma, 2005–2010

    FIGURE 1
    FIGURE 1

    Trends over time in exposure to ETS and in-home smoke among non–TSP-using youth with current asthma. ETS exposure was defined as serum continine levels ≥0.05 ng/mL among non-TSP users (use of a tobacco product including cigarettes, pipes, or cigars in the past 5 days or a serum cotinine level >10 ng/mL). Household smoke exposure in 1999–2004 and 2005–2010 was defined as a positive response to the following question: “Does anyone who lives here smoke cigarettes, cigars, or pipes anywhere inside this home?” In 1988–1994 household smoke exposure was defined as a positive response to the following question: “Does anyone who lives here smoke cigarettes in the home?” Note: There were significant linear decreasing trends (P < .05) between 1988–1994 and 2005–2010 for both ETS and in-home household smoke exposure. Dotted line, ETS; dashed line, in-home household smoke. (Source: NHANES.)

    More than 1 in 6 youth with asthma had in-home smoke exposure in 2005–2010 (17.6%; SE: 2.4%) (Table 4). Among low-income youth with asthma, 28.1% (SE: 3.1%) had in-home smoke exposure. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the aOR of in-home smoke exposure was higher among low-income youth with asthma (aOR: 4.2; 95% CI: 2.1, 8.3) compared with youth in the higher income category. The aOR of in-home smoke exposure was lower among Mexican American (aOR: 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1, 0.5) than among non-Hispanic white youth but did not otherwise differ statistically by race/ethnicity or by age and gender.

    Trends in prevalence of ETS exposure and in-home smoke exposure are presented in Fig 1. The prevalence of ETS exposure among youth with asthma declined between 1988–1994 and 2005–2010 (1988–1994, 89.1%; 1999–2004, 57.1%; and 2005–2010, 53.2%; P < .001 for trend). The prevalence of in-home smoke exposure among youth with asthma declined linearly between 1988–1994 and 2005–2010 (1988–1994, 36.3%; 1999–2004, 18.4%; and 2005–2010, 17.6%; P < .001 for trend). Although there were decreasing and significant linear trends for ETS and in-home smoke exposure over the entire 22-year study duration, the change between 1999–2004 and 2005–2010 was not significant. Similar to the overall trends, in each age (4–11 and 12–19 years), gender, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Mexican American), and income (PIR: <1.85 and ≥ 1.85) group, there was a decreasing trend in ETS exposure and in-home smoke exposure over the 22-year study period (details available in Supplemental Tables 5 and 6), although the trend for in-home smoke exposure among low-income participants was not significant. Among adolescents with asthma, 22.5% (SE: 4.2%), 18.8% (SE: 2.2%), and 17.3% (SE: 2.5%) used TSPs in 1988–1994, 1999–2004, and 2005–2010, respectively, which is a nonsignificant change. Sample sizes of adolescents with asthma in 1988–1994 (n = 196) limit the power to detect statistical significance and limit the ability to conduct subgroup analysis.

    Because adolescents may be exposed to tobacco smoke either by personal use of TSPs or by ETS, separate analyses were conducted to assess overall exposure to tobacco smoke among this age group. In these analyses, 57.5% (SE: 4.2%) of adolescents with asthma in 2005–2010 were exposed to either ETS or TSP. In addition, adolescents who used TSPs were not included in analyses of in-home smoke exposure. In separate analyses of all adolescents with asthma, including those who used TSPs, 18.4% (SE: 2.7%) had been exposed to in-home household smoke.

    Discussion

    Despite a decline in ETS exposure among youth with asthma in the United States since the late 1980s, a majority of youth with asthma remain exposed to ETS, with higher exposure rates among low-income youth. There was also a decline in reported in-home smoke exposure among children and adolescents with asthma. However, >1 in 6 children with asthma were reported to live with a household smoker. Furthermore, despite an overall decrease in exposure to ETS and in-home smoke over the 22-year study duration, there was not a significant change between 1999–2004 and 2005–2010. Among adolescents, the use of TSPs represents an additional exposure to tobacco smoke.

    To our knowledge, no other studies have examined tobacco smoke exposure among children and adolescents with asthma with the use of a national sample. However, other researchers have described high ETS exposure among youth with asthma in different populations.24,25 For example, in 1 inner-city community approximately half of youth with asthma were exposed to ETS.24 The prevalence of smoking and other forms of tobacco use among adolescents with asthma is not as well described in the literature.

    Our analysis examined in-home smoke exposure. However, there are other potential sources of smoke exposure not examined in our study. Previous studies have reported that sources of ETS exposure among children and adolescents include exposure from neighbors living in multiunit housing,26 exposure in cars,27,28 and exposure in other caretakers’ homes, including grandparents.29 In 1 study in low-income minority children with asthma in Los Angeles, approximately half of the smoking activity by household members occurred outside the home.30 By bringing clothing contaminated with tobacco smoke into the home, household members who engage in smoking outside the home may serve as an additional source of exposure to ETS.31

    Approximately 20% of US adults report smoking, and this proportion is even higher among low-income adults.32 In our analysis, we report that low-income youth have greater exposure to ETS and, among low-income adolescents, almost one-quarter used TSPs. Children in low-income families also have a high risk of adverse asthma outcomes.33 Insofar as tobacco smoke contributes to adverse asthma outcomes, this population may particularly benefit from reducing exposure to tobacco smoke.

    In the clinical setting, the American Academy of Pediatrics encourages pediatricians to discuss smoke exposure with all patients.34 Furthermore, the US Public Health Service recommends that clinicians advise all patients who use tobacco to quit and offer interventions; in the pediatric setting, this includes advising and offering interventions to smoking patients as well as their parents who smoke.35 Despite these recommendations, there are gaps in the delivery of anticipatory guidance to reduce tobacco smoke exposure.36–38 Moreover, even when screening and counseling occurs, most smoking parents are not provided resources for tobacco cessation.39 On the basis of a survey of providers of pediatric care, Kaplan et al40 concluded that improvements are needed to optimize delivery of smoking cessation guidance to adolescents.

    Communities within the United States have addressed the health risks associated with tobacco smoke exposure by implementing smoke-free laws. Persons living in communities with smoke-free laws have a lower prevalence of ETS exposure than those who do not live in a smoke-free community.41,42 However, even in smoke-free communities, exposure still occurs from household smokers. In our analysis, >1 in 6 children with asthma were reported to live with an in-home smoker. This proportion is similar to the general pediatric population,20,43 despite the focused recommendations from national asthma guidelines for persons with asthma to avoid ETS.14

    There was a large decrease in ETS exposure among youth with asthma between 1988–1994 and 2005–2010. Our study was not designed to assess the determinants of this trend. However, several ecologic associations suggest possible etiologies of the observed trend. Efforts to educate the public after the 1986 Surgeon General’s Report on second-hand smoke exposure may have resulted in changes in smoking behaviors.44 Clinical practice guidelines recommend eliminating tobacco smoke exposure as a management strategy for reducing asthma symptoms.14,45 Clinician adoption of clinical practice guidelines may have contributed to this trend. In addition, increases in the adoption of smoking bans in communities may have affected our findings.

    Our study has several strengths. First, the reported estimates are nationally representative of the US civilian, noninstitutionalized population. Second, we used serum cotinine, rather than self-report, to define ETS exposure, and the definition of TSP use was augmented by using serum cotinine concentrations. However, our study is not without limitations. Whereas we minimized social desirability bias in defining ETS exposure and TSP use, this bias still exists for self- and proxy-reported responses to household smoking behaviors. Thus, these reported data may underestimate the amount of in-home smoke exposure. In-home smoke exposure during NHANES III may have been further underestimated because individuals were not queried about household cigar or pipe use. In the surveys since 1999, it was possible to compare the prevalence of in-home cigarette use with the prevalence of household cigarette, cigar, or pipe use. These estimates differed by ∼1%; thus, the underestimation of in-home smoke exposure during NHANES III may be small. Finally, a relatively large proportion of the youth were missing serum cotinine values, particularly among the younger age group. However, there were few other differences between those with missing and complete data. Furthermore, an adjustment of sample weights did not significantly change our results, suggesting that nonresponse bias is unlikely to have significantly affected our findings.

    Conclusions

    Despite reductions over time in objectively measured ETS exposure and reported in-home smoke exposure, a majority of children and adolescents with asthma in the United States remain exposed to tobacco smoke and >1 in 6 live with a household smoker. Low-income youth with asthma experience particularly high exposure to tobacco smoke. There are consistent recommendations for youth, particularly those with asthma, to abstain from smoking, yet >1 in 6 adolescents used TSPs. Future research may include continued identification of effective interventions designed to reduce tobacco smoke exposure, particularly for low-income communities.

    Footnotes

      • Accepted November 12, 2012.
    • Address correspondence to Brian K. Kit, MD, MPH, 3311 Toledo Rd, Room 4419, Hyattsville, MD 20782. E-mail: igd0{at}cdc.gov

    • Dr Kit contributed to the conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and drafting the manuscript; Drs Simon and Akinbami contributed to the conception and design of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, and revising the manuscript; and Ms Brody contributed to the conception and design of the study, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of the data, and revising the manuscript.

    • Findings from this work were presented in part at the April 28-May 1, 2012 Pediatric Academic Societies meeting; Boston, MA.

    • The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: No external funding.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Gerald LB,
      2. Gerald JK,
      3. Gibson L,
      4. Patel K,
      5. Zhang S,
      6. McClure LA
      . Changes in environmental tobacco smoke exposure and asthma morbidity among urban school children. Chest. 2009;135(4):911–916pmid:19841120
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Chilmonczyk BA,
      2. Salmun LM,
      3. Megathlin KN,
      4. et al
      . Association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and exacerbations of asthma in children. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(23):1665–1669pmid:8487825
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Evans D,
      2. Levison MJ,
      3. Feldman CH,
      4. et al
      . The impact of passive smoking on emergency room visits of urban children with asthma. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;135(3):567–572pmid:3826881
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Fielder HM,
      2. Lyons RA,
      3. Heaven M,
      4. Morgan H,
      5. Govier P,
      6. Hooper M
      . Effect of environmental tobacco smoke on peak flow variability. Arch Dis Child. 1999;80(3):253–256pmid:10325706
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Sims TH,
      2. Committee on Substance Abuse
      . Technical report—tobacco as a substance of abuse. Pediatrics. 2009;124(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/124/5/e1045pmid:19017893
      OpenUrlPubMed
      1. Gold DR
      . Environmental tobacco smoke, indoor allergens, and childhood asthma. Environ Health Perspect. 2000;108(suppl 4):643–651pmid:10931782
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Mannino DM,
      2. Homa DM,
      3. Redd SC
      . Involuntary smoking and asthma severity in children: data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Chest. 2002;122(2):409–415pmid:12171810
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Morkjaroenpong V,
      2. Rand CS,
      3. Butz AM,
      4. et al
      . Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and nocturnal symptoms among inner-city children with asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;110(1):147–153pmid:12110834
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Murray AB,
      2. Morrison BJ
      . The decrease in severity of asthma in children of parents who smoke since the parents have been exposing them to less cigarette smoke. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993;91(1 pt 1):102–110pmid:8423267
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Strachan DP,
      2. Cook DG
      . Health effects of passive smoking. 6. Parental smoking and childhood asthma: longitudinal and case-control studies. Thorax. 1998;53(3):204–212pmid:9659358
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Yoo S,
      2. Kim HB,
      3. Lee SY,
      4. et al
      . Effect of active smoking on asthma symptoms, pulmonary function, and BHR in adolescents. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2009;44(10):954–961pmid:19728392
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Chapman RS,
      2. Hadden WC,
      3. Perlin SA
      . Influences of asthma and household environment on lung function in children and adolescents: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;158(2):175–189pmid:12851231
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Weitzman M,
      2. Gortmaker S,
      3. Walker DK,
      4. Sobol A
      . Maternal smoking and childhood asthma. Pediatrics. 1990;85(4):505–511pmid:2314963
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Third Expert Panel on the Management of Asthma. Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: Full Report 2007. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2007
    15. ↵
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Plan and operation of the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Vital Health and Statistics, Series 1, Number 32. 1994 Jul;(32):1-407
    16. ↵
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES 1999-2010. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nhanes/datalink.htm. Accessed May 14, 2012
    17. ↵
      1. Jarvis MJ,
      2. Russell MA,
      3. Benowitz NL,
      4. Feyerabend C
      . Elimination of cotinine from body fluids: implications for noninvasive measurement of tobacco smoke exposure. Am J Public Health. 1988;78(6):696–698pmid:3369603
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Center for Health Statistics/Division of Health and Nutrition Surveys. Laboratory procedure manual/cotinine. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/nhanes2007-2008/lab_methods_07_08.htm. Accessed August 28, 2011
    19. ↵
      1. Pirkle JL,
      2. Flegal KM,
      3. Bernert JT,
      4. Brody DJ,
      5. Etzel RA,
      6. Maurer KR
      . Exposure of the US population to environmental tobacco smoke: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991. JAMA. 1996;275(16):1233–1240pmid:8601954
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
      . Disparities in secondhand smoke exposure—United States, 1988-1994 and 1999-2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008;57(27):744–747pmid:18614993
      OpenUrlPubMed
    21. ↵
      Federal Register. Child nutrition programs—income eligibility guidelines. Available at: www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/iegs/IEGs09-10.pdf. Accessed February 3, 2011
    22. ↵
      1. Winer BJ
      . Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies; 1971
    23. ↵
      1. Lohr S
      . Sampling Design and Analysis. Albany, NY: Duxbury Press; 1999
    24. ↵
      1. Butz AM,
      2. Halterman JS,
      3. Bellin M,
      4. et al
      . Factors associated with second-hand smoke exposure in young inner-city children with asthma. J Asthma. 2011;48(5):449–457pmid:21545248
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Halterman JS,
      2. Borrelli B,
      3. Tremblay P,
      4. et al
      . Screening for environmental tobacco smoke exposure among inner-city children with asthma. Pediatrics. 2008;122(6):1277–1283pmid:19047246
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Wilson KM,
      2. Klein JD,
      3. Blumkin AK,
      4. Gottlieb M,
      5. Winickoff JP
      . Tobacco-smoke exposure in children who live in multiunit housing. Pediatrics. 2011;127(1):85–92pmid:21149434
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Halterman JS,
      2. Fagnano M,
      3. Conn KM,
      4. Szilagyi PG
      . Do parents of urban children with persistent asthma ban smoking in their homes and cars? Ambul Pediatr. 2006;6(2):115–119pmid:16530150
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. King BA,
      2. Dube SR,
      3. Tynan MA
      . Secondhand smoke exposure in cars among middle and high school students—United States, 2000–2009. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):446–452pmid:22311992
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Hopper JA,
      2. Craig KA
      . Environmental tobacco smoke exposure among urban children. Pediatrics. 2000;106(4). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/106/4/E47pmid:11015542
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Berman BA,
      2. Wong GC,
      3. Bastani R,
      4. et al
      . Household smoking behavior and ETS exposure among children with asthma in low-income, minority households. Addict Behav. 2003;28(1):111–128pmid:12507531
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Matt GE,
      2. Quintana PJ,
      3. Hovell MF,
      4. et al
      . Households contaminated by environmental tobacco smoke: sources of infant exposures. Tob Control. 2004;13(1):29–37pmid:14985592
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
      . Vital signs: current cigarette smoking among adults aged ≥18 years—United States, 2005-2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60(35):1207–1212pmid:21900875
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Akinbami LJ,
      2. LaFleur BJ,
      3. Schoendorf KC
      . Racial and income disparities in childhood asthma in the United States. Ambul Pediatr. 2002;2(5):382–387pmid:12241134
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Committee on Environmental Health,
      2. Committee on Substance Abuse,
      3. Committee on Adolescence,
      4. Committee on Native American Child
      . Policy statement—Tobacco use: a pediatric disease. Pediatrics. 2009;124(5):1474–1487pmid:19841108
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      Fiore M; US Tobacco Use and Dependence Guideline Panel. Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 2008
    36. ↵
      1. Tanski SE,
      2. Klein JD,
      3. Winickoff JP,
      4. Auinger P,
      5. Weitzman M
      . Tobacco counseling at well-child and tobacco-influenced illness visits: opportunities for improvement. Pediatrics. 2003;111(2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/111/2/E162pmid:12563090
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Winickoff JP,
      2. McMillen RC,
      3. Carroll BC,
      4. et al
      . Addressing parental smoking in pediatrics and family practice: a national survey of parents. Pediatrics. 2003;112(5):1146–1151pmid:14595060
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    38. ↵
      1. Galuska DA,
      2. Fulton JE,
      3. Powell KE,
      4. et al
      . Pediatrician counseling about preventive health topics: results from the Physicians’ Practices Survey, 1998–1999. Pediatrics. 2002;109(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/109/5/E83pmid:11986489
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. Winickoff JP,
      2. Tanski SE,
      3. McMillen RC,
      4. Klein JD,
      5. Rigotti NA,
      6. Weitzman M
      . Child health care clinicians’ use of medications to help parents quit smoking: a national parent survey. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4):1013–1017pmid:15805379
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      1. Kaplan CP,
      2. Pérez-Stable EJ,
      3. Fuentes-Afflick E,
      4. Gildengorin V,
      5. Millstein S,
      6. Juarez-Reyes M
      . Smoking cessation counseling with young patients: the practices of family physicians and pediatricians. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(1):83–90pmid:14706964
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Pickett MS,
      2. Schober SE,
      3. Brody DJ,
      4. Curtin LR,
      5. Giovino GA
      . Smoke-free laws and secondhand smoke exposure in US non-smoking adults, 1999-2002. Tob Control. 2006;15(4):302–307pmid:16885579
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      1. Dove MS,
      2. Dockery DW,
      3. Connolly GN
      . Smoke-free air laws and secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmoking youth. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):80–87pmid:20530079
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
      . Vital signs: nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke—United States, 1999-2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2010;59(35):1141–1146pmid:20829748
      OpenUrlPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. US Department of Health and Human Services
      . The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health; 1986
    45. ↵
      National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Third Expert Panel on the Management of Asthma. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program Expert Panel Report: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: Update on Selected Topics, 2002. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; 2002
    Back to top

    In this issue

    Pediatrics
    Vol. 131, Issue 3
    1 Mar 2013
    View this article with LENS
    Email Article
    Request Permissions
    Article Alerts
    Citation Tools
    US Prevalence and Trends in Tobacco Smoke Exposure Among Children and Adolescents With Asthma
    Brian K. Kit, Alan E. Simon, Debra J. Brody, Lara J. Akinbami
    Pediatrics Mar 2013, 131 (3) 407-414; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2328
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    Download PDF
    Insight Alerts

    Jump to section

    Keywords