Objective: To clarify the actual status and perceptions of smoking, including Heated Tobacco Products, among mothers. Method: A survey was conducted among mothers who infant health checkups in City A. The survey sought to determine mothers’ basic attributes, smoking status (including Heated Tobacco Products), smoking environment, and awareness of smoking. The data of 197 subjects were analyzed. Results: The smoking rate was 3.7% among target persons and 32.4% for spouses. Among current smokers and spouses, 16.7% and 60.7% used Heated Tobacco Products, respectively. Target people who think Heated Tobacco Products is less harmful to their health have higher KTSND scores than those who do not, and the percentage of people who are willing to use Heated Tobacco Products in non-smoking areas tends to be higher in those who have never smoked than in those who have smoked. Discussion: Heated Tobacco Products is widespread among pregnant and child-rearing generations. It was suggested that misrecognition of tobacco leads to misrecognition of Heated Tobacco Products and even nonsmokers are at risk of underestimating the harm of Heated Tobacco Products. Conclusion: It is important to be aware that both Heated Tobacco Products and tobacco pose a health risk and providing correct information to non-smokers.
Objective: Based on a survey of first-year university students, this study examined the effectiveness of antismoking education for first-year university students in light of differences in departments. Methods: Multiple regression analysis was performed with department as dummy variables to determine whether the coefficient of the dummy variable representing the department was significant after controlling for other factors. The effectiveness of anti-smoking education was analyzed based on the intercept and slope of the regression line. Results: Concerning the department of social sciences, the coefficient of the department dummy variable was positive and significant (partial regression coefficient 2.367, p < 0.01) even after controlling for other variables indicating the characteristics of the department. On the other hand, the coefficient of the dummy variable for the department of welfare was a negative and significant (-1.067, p < 0.05). In other words, antismoking education was ineffective for social science department compared to welfare department. Discussion: The social inequality in smoking (the coefficient of the dummy variable for the department of social sciences was positive and significant) was due to norms that cannot be assessed by the Kano Test for Social Nicotine Dependence (KTSND). If the norms not ascertained with the KTSND in this study were included in the multiple regression model as an explanatory variable, then the coefficient for this explanatory variable would be positive and significant, while the coefficient for the dummy variable of the social science department would not be significant. Conclusion: Adding factors that cannot be ascertained with the KTSND to the multiple regression model used here should yield methods of education that increase the effectiveness of this anti-smoking intervention.