CHILDREN needing hospital treatment due to chest infections may have dropped by as much as a fifth since anti-smoking laws were introduced, research suggests.
A study led by the University of Edinburgh and the Erasmus University Medical Centre in the Netherlands combined data from 41 papers in countries where tobacco control policies have been introduced.
The figures suggest rates of children requiring hospital care for severe chest infections have dropped by more than 18% since bans were introduced.
Professor Aziz Sheikh, director of the University of Edinburgh's Usher Institute and the Asthma UK Centre for Applied Research, said: "Our evaluation provides compelling evidence of the considerable impact of tobacco control policies on child health.
"This work should spur governments to take action to implement tried and tested policies - strongly advocated by the World Health Organization - to reduce second-hand smoke exposure and improve a range of important health outcomes in infants and children."
Data was taken from more than 57 million births and 2.7 million hospital admissions.
The paper estimates severe asthma attacks have also fallen by almost 10% while the number of babies born prematurely has dropped by around 4% overall.
Dr Jasper Been, of the Erasmus Medical Centre, said: "Our study demonstrates that children's health benefits substantially from smoke-free laws and raising tobacco prices.
"To protect the health of some of the most vulnerable members of society, implementation of such tobacco control policies should be accelerated across the globe. The effectiveness of additional strategies also needs to be evaluated."
About half of all children globally are regularly exposed to tobacco smoke.
Children who breathe second-hand smoke are more prone to serious chest infections such as pneumonia and bronchitis.
They are also more likely to develop asthma and attacks can be more severe, needing hospital care.
Babies of mothers who smoke during pregnancy have a higher chance of being born early, which exposes them to health complications in later life.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel