The key element of the campaign was a 40-s GSK2256098 site Television advertisement which aired as much as 10 times a day from 26 March to 15 SART.S23506 June 2014 on 3 terrestrial Tv channels. The advert showed a mother tucking her six-year old son into bed, shutting his bedroom door and also the kitchen door just before lighting a cigarette. She opens the window and when her partner enters she gestures to him to shut the door speedily, and waves her hand to disperse the smoke. She then puts the cigarette out and closes the window. A split screen shows on a single side her watching Television with her companion, brushing her teeth and going to bed, though on the other side tobacco smoke steadily darkens her son’s lungs as shown on his white t-shirt even though he sleeps. A voice-over explains that “Kids breathe more rapidly than adults. After you smoke indoors, your secondhand smoke lingers inside the air. You cannot see it or smell it but it really is there. No matter what you do the dangerous chemical compounds move from area to space for up to five hours, and simply because your child breathes quicker than you, they breathe more of these harmful chemical compounds. You could pick out whether or not your child breathes secondhand smoke or clean air. For your kids’ sake, don’t smoke indoors. Take it suitable outside”. Within this study we initially undertook interviews with disadvantaged parents before the media campaign and found that the challenging and altering living circumstances and also the escalating mobility of youngsters in their first couple of years were essential barriers to them producing smokefree residences [30]. Our previously published paper on these findings focussed around the disadvantaged mothers who had been interviewed and their reported attempts to guard their kids from both SHS and becoming smokers. We found that these attempts had been motivated by the perceived future health and monetary burdens these entail [30]. In the context of 02699931.2015.1049516 many intersecting dimensions of disadvantage (unemployment, low earnings, alcohol/drug abuse, and domestic abuse), the crucial to be and to become observed to become a very good mother was also key in shaping smoking practices within the dwelling. Even though some recognised that the tactics that they utilized to protect their youngsters from SHS (e.g., opening windows, moving to a different space) weren’t wholly helpful, they were perceived to become the most effective that they could do inside their constrained situations. Within this paper we draw around the second wave of interviews with a sub-sample of these parents (such as fathers) which took place following the media campaign and explore how they engaged with, and responded to, this mass media campaign which encouraged them to smoke “right outside”, offered their difficult situations, drawing on an adapted version of Niederdeppe et al.’s framework [21] outlined previously. two. Components and Techniques 2.1. Participants Twenty-two mothers and 3 fathers had been interviewed individually pre-campaign in November 2013 anuary 2014. The post-campaign follow-up interviews with seventeen of those parents took spot in Could ugust 2014. Eight on the original parents couldn’t be contacted or didn’t turn up for the interview. Fourteen mothers and three fathers aged 22?7 years have been interviewed. Parents hadInt. J. Environ. R.