Abstract
BackgroundThe evaluation of smoke-free legislation (SFL) in the UK examined the impacts on exposure to second-hand smoke, workers’ attitudes and changes in respiratory health. Studies that investigate changes in the health of groups of people often use self-reported symptoms. Due to the subjective nature it is of interest to determine whether workers’ attitudes towards the change in their working conditions may be linked to the change in health they report.MethodsBar workers were recruited before the introduction of the SFL in Scotland and England with the aim of investigating their changes to health, attitudes and exposure as a result of the SFL. They were asked about their attitudes towards SFL and the presence of respiratory and sensory symptoms both before SFL and one year later. Here we examine the possibility of a relationship between initial attitudes and changes in reported symptoms, through the use of regression analyses.ResultsThere was no difference in the initial attitudes towards SFL between those working in Scotland and England. Bar workers who were educated to a higher level tended to be more positive towards SFL. Attitude towards SFL was not found to be related to change in reported symptoms for bar workers in England (Respiratory, p = 0.755; Sensory, p = 0.910). In Scotland there was suggestion of a relationship with reporting of respiratory symptoms (p = 0.042), where those who were initially more negative to SFL experienced a greater improvement in self-reported health.ConclusionsThere was no evidence that workers who were more positive towards SFL reported greater improvements in respiratory and sensory symptoms. This may not be the case in all interventions and we recommend examining subjects’ attitudes towards the proposed intervention when evaluating possible health benefits using self-reported methods.
Highlights
The evaluation of smoke-free legislation (SFL) in the UK examined the impacts on exposure to second-hand smoke, workers’ attitudes and changes in respiratory health
One person was excluded from the analysis for being under 18 leaving 548 eligible bar workers who participated in the study at phase 1 (P1)
Those who continued to participate at P3 were, generally, not significantly different from those who dropped out after P1, with between 50 and 60% of each subgroup not taking part at P3 (e.g. 52% of males and 55% of females were lost to follow-up primarily due to the high turnover rate among students employed in bar work)
Summary
The evaluation of smoke-free legislation (SFL) in the UK examined the impacts on exposure to second-hand smoke, workers’ attitudes and changes in respiratory health. In the past 15 years many countries have attempted to limit exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) by implementing smoke-free legislation (SFL). The impact of introducing SFL in several countries has been examined and evaluated in several ways including: changes in air quality within pubs and bars [6,7,8,9], salivary cotinine levels both population wide [10] and amongst bar workers, [11,12,13] hospital admissions for acute coronary syndromes [14,15,16] and asthma [17], changes to children’s and non-smokers’ exposure to SHS [18,19] and changes in the smoking habits of smoking hospitality workers as a result of SFL [20]. This study suggests that those with negative attitudes to SFL were more likely to report a negative economic impact post-ban
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
