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

Gareth Rouch,Heather Gifford,Sheena Hudson,George Thomson,Nick Wilson,Tolotea Lanumata,Richard Edwards

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-797

Gareth Rouch, Heather Gifford + Show 5 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-797

Copy DOI

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Governments use law to constrain aspects of private activities for purposes of protecting health and social wellbeing
Because we had a sufficient range of politicians and officials, and because we found repeated themes across the ‘left-right’ spectrum, we did not recruit further
Many New Zealand local authorities have and are continuing to introduce relevant policy measures, such as smokefree parks and playgrounds so we focused on this area of activity

Summary

Introduction

Governments use law to constrain aspects of private activities for purposes of protecting health and social wellbeing. Our aim was to identify obstacles to, and opportunities for, government smokefree regulation of private and public spaces to protect children. Public policy and health In order to protect children, governments reach into both public and private settings. These actions include investigations into the risk of harm to children, and interventions to decrease or prevent such harm in the where those behaviours threaten the welfare of children or others (eg, requirements for seat belts and child restraints, [9] and bans on cellphone use while driving in cars) [10]. Some seemingly private activities, eg, the use of violence to children in a private space, are seen by some societies as an appropriate concern of the state. Eg, private cars, can be considered to contain both activities of public concern (eg, driving without due care) and some personal or private activities (eg, eating, talking) [14]

Results

Discussion

Conclusion