Suchergebnisse

Die UN-BRK verlangt die Umsetzung neuer Strukturen, die einen Paradigmenwechsel in der Behindertenrechtspolitik fördern. Die Autorin untersucht, wie ausgewählte EU-Mitgliedstaaten die Bestimmungen umsetzen, insbesondere die Rolle von staatlichen Stellen, Monitoring-Mechanismen und Behindertenorganisationen. Um die Implementierung der UN-BRK und die Rolle der relevanten Akteure zu erfassen, wendet die Autorin das Konzept der Multi-Level-Governance an und nutzt die Methode der vergleichenden politischen Analyse, z.B. des Fallstudienansatzes, sowie die Techniken der Datenerhebung. Das Buch ist von besonderem Interesse für Forscher:innen im Behindertenrecht und Politik, politische Entscheidungsträger:innen, Behindertenrechts- und Menschenrechtsorganisationen.

OBJECTIVES: Given high prevalence of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure in Armenia and Georgia and quicker implementation of tobacco legislation in Georgia versus Armenia, we examined correlates of having no/partial versus complete smoke-free home (SFH) restrictions across countries, particularly smoking characteristics, risk perceptions, social influences and public smoking restrictions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study design. SETTING: 28 communities in Armenia and Georgia surveyed in 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 1456 adults ages 18–64 in Armenia (n=705) and Georgia (n=751). MEASUREMENTS: We used binary logistic regression to examine aforementioned correlates of no/partial versus complete SFH among non-smokers and smokers in Armenia and Georgia, respectively. RESULTS: Participants were an average age of 43.35, 60.5% women and 27.3% smokers. In Armenia, among non-smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being men (OR=2.63, p=0.001) and having more friend smokers (OR=1.23, p=0.002); among smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being unmarried (OR=10.00, p=0.001), lower quitting importance (OR=0.82, p=0.010) and less favourable smoking attitudes among friends/family/public (OR=0.48, p=0.034). In Georgia, among non-smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with older age (OR=1.04, p=0.002), being men (OR=5.56, p<0.001), lower SHS risk perception (OR=0.43, p<0.001), more friend smokers (OR=1.49, p=0.002) and fewer workplace (indoor) restrictions (OR=0.51, p=0.026); among smokers, having no/partial SFHs correlated with being men (OR=50.00, p<0.001), without children (OR=5.88, p<0.001), daily smoking (OR=4.30, p=0.050), lower quitting confidence (OR=0.81, p=0.004), more friend smokers (OR=1.62, p=0.038) and fewer community restrictions (OR=0.68, p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Private settings continue to lack smoking restrictions in Armenia and Georgia. Findings highlight the importance of social influences and comprehensive tobacco legislation, particularly smoke-free policies, in changing ...

Garnering support for smoke-free policies is critical for their successful adoption, particularly in countries with high smoking prevalence, such as Armenia and Georgia. In 2018, we surveyed 1456 residents (ages 18–64) of 28 cities in Armenia (n = 705) and Georgia (n = 751). We examined support for cigarette and electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS)/heated tobacco product (HTP) smoke-free policies in various locations and persuasiveness of pro- and anti-policy messaging. Participants were an average age of 43.35, 60.5% female, and 27.3% current smokers. Nonsmokers versus smokers indicated greater policy support for cigarette and ENDS/HTP and greater persuasiveness of pro-policy messaging. Armenians versus Georgians generally perceived pro- and anti-policy messaging more persuasive. In multilevel linear regression, sociodemographics (e.g., female) and tobacco use characteristics (e.g., smoking less frequently, higher quitting importance) correlated with more policy support. Greatest policy support was for healthcare, religious, government, and workplace settings; public transport; schools; and vehicles carrying children. Least policy support was for bar/restaurant outdoor areas. The most compelling pro-policy message focused on the right to clean air; the most compelling anti-policy message focused on using nonsmoking sections. Specific settings may present challenges for advancing smoke-free policies. Messaging focusing on individual rights to clean air and health may garner support.