Smoke-free Workplace Research Articles

Israel is failing to protect its citizens from secondhand smoke: underestimating public support

Rather than clearly and unequivocally requiring 100% smokefree workplaces and public places (including restaurants, bars and other entertainment venues), Israeli law contains several elements that parallel the tobacco companies’ “accommodation” program, which is designed to maintain the social acceptability of smoking and protect industry profits. Rather than 100% smokefree workplaces, smoking is permitted in private offices despite the fact that it then wafts throughout the building. Bars and pubs are allowed to set aside a quarter of their space for smokers, as long as it is in a separate room, and this explains the dangerous levels of secondhand smoke air pollution in Israeli bars and pubs. The weaknesses in the current Israeli laws are sending Israeli citizens to the hospital for secondhand smoke-induced heart attacks, asthma and other diseases. The Israeli government needs to catch up with the rest of the developed world and enact and implement a strong smokefree law.This is a commentary on http://www.ijhpr.org/content/2/1/20/.

Implementation of a smoke-free policy in a high secure mental health inpatient facility: staff survey to describe experience and attitudes.

BackgroundIn 2008, a new forensic hospital was opened as a totally smoke-free facility. This study describes the attitudes and experience of mental health professionals working in the high secure mental health facility three years after it was opened. It is part of a larger evaluation describing the experience of current and discharged hospital patients.MethodsQuantitative data was collected using a survey of hospital staff (N = 111) with a 50% response rate. The survey collected demographic and smoking data to describe staff responses to statements relating to hospital smoking policy, patient care and staff support.ResultsAmong staff surveyed, 13% were current smokers and 41% were ex-smokers (10% quit after commencing employment in the smoke-free hospital). Most (88%) preferred to work in a smoke-free environment, although this was significantly lower in smokers compared to non-smokers (39% vs. 95%). While most staff felt that the smoke-free environment had a positive impact on the health of patients (86%) and on themselves (79%), smokers were significantly less likely to agree. Just over half (57%) of staff surveyed agreed that patient care was easier in a totally smoke-free environment, although less smokers agreed compared to non-smokers. Staff who smoked were also significantly less likely to indicate they had sufficient support working in a smoke-free environment, compared to non-smokers (15% vs. 38%).ConclusionsThe staff surveyed supported the smoke-free workplace policy; most agreed that patient care was easier and that the policy did not lead to an increase in patient aggression. Implementation of a total smoking ban can result in positive health outcomes for patients and staff, and may influence some staff to quit. Staff who smoke have a less positive experience of the policy and require additional support.

The short-term impact of smoke-free workplace laws on fatal heart attacks

Using data from across the US, we find that as the number of communities adopting smoking bans in workplaces in a state increases or an entire state goes smoke-free, there are significant reductions in fatal Myocardial Infarctions (MI) among those aged 25–54. The result proves durable, as we subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks. These results are smaller in magnitude, however, than published case studies analysing the experiences of individual communities passing bans.

Association between smoke-free workplace and second-hand smoke exposure at home in India

BackgroundThe implementation of comprehensive smoke-free laws has been associated with reductions in second-hand smoke exposure at home in several high income countries. There is little information on whether these benefits...

Strong Smoke-Free Law Coverage in the United States by Race/Ethnicity: 2000–2009

We determined whether racial/ethnic disparities existed in coverage by type of 100% smoke-free private workplace, restaurant, and bar laws from 2000 to 2009. We combined US census population data and the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation US Tobacco Control Database to calculate the percentage of individuals in counties covered by each type of law by race/ethnicity from 2000 to 2009. More of the US Hispanic and Asian populations were covered by 100% smoke-free restaurant and bar laws than non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black populations. Asian coverage by smoke-free bars laws increased from 36% to 75%, and Hispanic coverage increased from 31% to 62%, compared with 6% to 41% for non-Hispanic Blacks and 8% to 49% for non-Hispanic Whites. Hispanics and Asians benefited more from the rapid spread of smoke-free law coverage, whereas non-Hispanic Blacks benefited less. These ethnic disparities suggest a likely effect of geographic region and may provide a basis for more effective, community-based, and tailored policy-related interventions, particularly regarding areas with high concentrations of non-Hispanic Blacks.

The efficacy of different models of smoke-free laws in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke: A multi-country comparison

Exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke is a serious public health concern and while all EU Member States have enacted some form of regulation aimed at limiting exposure, the scope of these regulations vary widely and many countries have failed to enact comprehensive legislation creating smoke-free workplaces and indoor public places. To gauge the effectiveness of different smoke-free models we compared fine particles from second-hand smoke in hospitality venues before and after the implementation of smoking bans in France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, and Scotland.Data on PM2.5 fine particle concentration levels were recorded in 338 hospitality venues across these countries before and after the implementation of smoke-free legislation. Changes in mean PM2.5 concentrations during the period from pre- to post-legislation were then compared across countries.While a reduction in PM2.5 was observed in all countries, those who had enacted and enforced more fully comprehensive smoke-free legislation experienced the greatest reduction in second-hand tobacco smoke.Comprehensive smoke-free laws are more effective than partial laws in reducing exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke. Also, any law, regardless of scope must be actively enforced in order to have the desired impact. There is continued need for surveillance of smoke-free efforts in all countries.

Urinary Cotinine and Breath Carbon Monoxide Levels Among Bar and Restaurant Employees in Ankara

Hospitality sector employees constitute one of the key groups with respect to their secondhand tobacco smoke exposure at work. This study aimed to detect urinary cotinine and breath carbon monoxide (CO) levels among bar and restaurant employees in Ankara, as well as the employees' opinions on the new antitobacco law, changes in smoking behavior, and subjective health status before and after the law entered into force. This before-after study was conducted in 19 premises, with the participation of 65 employees before implementation and 81 employees 3 months after implementation of the new antitobacco law in the hospitality sector. Data in both phases were collected through face-to-face surveys, breath CO measurements, and urinary cotinine analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data, whereas chi-square test, paired and unpaired t tests, and analysis of variance were used to compare groups. Most of the restaurant and bar employees were male and below 35 years old. Before-after comparison showed that health complaints of the hospitality sector employees such as watering and itching in the eyes, difficulty in breathing, and cough (p < .001), as well as breath CO (p < .001) and urinary cotinine levels (p < .001) decreased significantly 3 months after implementation of the law. Among the smoking employees, mean number of cigarettes smoked was also found to decrease (p = .012). Majority of the employees (83.8%) were found to support the smoking ban in enclosed public places. Results of this study provide solid evidence on the positive health effects of smoke-free laws and employees' support for smoke-free workplaces.

Attitudes Toward Smoke-Free Workplaces, Restaurants, and Bars, Casinos, and Clubs Among U.S. Adults: Findings From the 2009-2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey

An increasing number of U.S. states and communities have implemented smoke-free policies prohibiting smoking in all indoor workplaces and public areas. Public attitudes toward smoke-free environments are an evidenced-based, key indicator for the successful implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies. Data were obtained from the 2009-2010 National Adult Tobacco Survey, a landline and cell phone survey of adults aged ≥18 years old residing in the 50U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The overall proportion of respondents who reported that smoking should "never be allowed" in workplaces, restaurants, and bars/casinos/clubs was calculated, both nationally and by state. National estimates were also calculated by sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, annual household income, sexual orientation, and smoking status. Nationally, 81.6% of U.S. adults think workplaces should be smoke-free (state range: 68.6% [Kentucky] to 89.1% [California]); 74.9% think restaurants should be smoke-free (state range: 59.5% [Missouri] to 84.6% [California]); 50.0% think bars/casinos/clubs should be smoke-free (state range: 32.3% [Nevada] to 61.3% [Maine]); and 47.5% think workplaces, restaurants, and bars/casinos/clubs should be smoke-free (state range: 30.3% [Nevada] to 58.8% [Maine]). Regardless of venue type, women, older individuals, non-Hispanic Asians, individuals with higher education and income, and nonsmokers were the most likely to think these environments should be smoke-free. A majority of U.S. adults think workplaces and restaurants should be smoke-free, while half think bars, casinos, and clubs should be smoke-free. Continued efforts are needed to educate the public about the dangers of secondhand smoke and the benefits of smoke-free indoor environments.

Enforcement of Ohio's Smoke Free Workplace Law through the lens of public health practice.

Little is known about whether public health (PH) enforcement of Ohio's 2007 Smoke Free Workplace Law (SFWPL) is associated with department (agency) characteristics, practice, or state reimbursement to local PH agencies for enforcement. We used mixed methods to determine practice patterns, perceptions, and opinions among the PH workforce involved in enforcement to identify agency and workforce associations. Focus groups and phone interviews (n=13) provided comments and identified issues in developing an online survey targeting PH workers through e-mail recruitment (433 addresses). A total of 171 PH workers responded to the survey. Of Ohio's 88 counties, 81 (43% rural and 57% urban) were represented. More urban than rural agencies agreed that SFWPL enforcement was worth the effort and cost (80% vs. 61%, p=0.021). The State Attorney General's collection of large outstanding fines was perceived as unreliable. An estimated 77% of agencies lose money on enforcement annually; 18% broke even, 56% attributed a financial loss to uncollected fines, and 63% occasionally or never fully recovered fines. About half of agency leaders (49%) felt that state reimbursements were inadequate to cover inspection costs. Rural agencies (59%) indicated they would be more likely than urban agencies (40%) to drop enforcement if reimbursements ended (p=0.0070). Prioritization of SFWPL vs. routine code enforcement differed between rural and urban agencies. These findings demonstrate the importance of increasing state health department financial support of local enforcement activities and improving collection of fines for noncompliance. Otherwise, many PH agencies, especially rural ones, will opt out, thereby increasing the state's burden to enforce SFWPL and challenging widespread public support for the law.

Failure of Tobacco Control in Central Europe

Failure of tobacco control in Europe is mainly due to lack of enforcement of smoke-free workplaces and public places, low tobacco tax and price, easy access of cigarettes for adolescents, and public smoking visible to children as the normal adult behavior. Driving force behind alibi laws without implementation is the corruption by the tobacco industry. An example of an EU member country is given, where tobacconists distribute the newspapers and the government resists amendments of the tobacco law to meet article 5.3 and article 8 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This WHO convention should be included in binding directives of the European Union.

Myocardial Infarction and Sudden Cardiac Death in Olmsted County, Minnesota, Before and After Smoke-Free Workplace Laws

Reductions in admissions for myocardial infarction (MI) have been reported in locales where smoke-free workplace laws have been implemented, but no study has assessed sudden cardiac death in that setting. In 2002, a smoke-free restaurant ordinance was implemented in Olmsted County, Minnesota, and in 2007, all workplaces, including bars, became smoke free. To evaluate the population impact of smoke-free laws, we measured, through the Rochester Epidemiology Project, the incidence of MI and sudden cardiac death in Olmsted County during the 18-month period before and after implementation of each smoke-free ordinance. All MIs were continuously abstracted and validated, using rigorous standardized criteria relying on biomarkers, cardiac pain, and Minnesota coding of the electrocardiogram. Sudden cardiac death was defined as out-of-hospital deaths associated with coronary disease. Comparing the 18 months before implementation of the smoke-free restaurant ordinance with the 18 months after implementation of the smoke-free workplace law, the incidence of MI declined by 33% (P < .001), from 150.8 to 100.7 per 100,000 population, and the incidence of sudden cardiac death declined by 17% (P = .13), from 109.1 to 92.0 per 100,000 population. During the same period, the prevalence of smoking declined and that of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and obesity either remained constant or increased. A substantial decline in the incidence of MI was observed after smoke-free laws were implemented, the magnitude of which is not explained by community cointerventions or changes in cardiovascular risk factors with the exception of smoking prevalence. As trends in other risk factors do not appear explanatory, smoke-free workplace laws seem to be ecologically related to these favorable trends. Secondhand smoke exposure should be considered a modifiable risk factor for MI. All people should avoid secondhand smoke to the extent possible, and people with coronary heart disease should have no exposure to secondhand smoke.

Air quality, mortality, and economic benefits of a smoke - free workplace law for non-smoking Ontario bar workers

We estimated the impact of a smoke-free workplace bylaw on non-smoking bar workers' health in Ontario, Canada. We measured bar workers' urine cotinine before (n = 99) and after (n = 91) a 2004 smoke-free workplace bylaw. Using pharmacokinetic and epidemiological models, we estimated workers' fine-particle (PM2.5 ) air pollution exposure and mortality risks from workplace secondhand smoke (SHS). workers' pre-law geometric mean cotinine was 10.3 ng/ml; post-law dose declined 70% to 3.10 ng/ml and reported work hours of exposure by 90%. Pre-law, 97% of workers' doses exceeded the 90th percentile for Canadians of working age. Pre-law-estimated 8-h average workplace PM2.5 exposure from SHS was 419 μg/m(3) or 'Very Poor' air quality, while outdoor PM2.5 levels averaged 7 μg/m(3) , 'Very Good' air quality by Canadian Air Quality Standards. We estimated that the bar workers' annual mortality rate from workplace SHS exposure was 102 deaths per 100000 persons. This was 2.4 times the occupational disease fatality rate for all Ontario workers. We estimated that half to two-thirds of the 10620 Ontario bar workers were non-smokers. Accordingly, Ontario's smoke-free law saved an estimated 5-7 non-smoking bar workers' lives annually, valued at CA $50 million to $68 million (US $49 million to $66 million).

Smokefree Home Rules Adoption by Smokers and Nonsmokers: Minnesota, 1999–2010

Smokefree workplace policies have successfully limited indoor exposure to secondhand smoke. However, exposure still exists in other indoor locations, most notably in the home. This paper examines change in the public's awareness of secondhand smoke harm, exposure to secondhand smoke, and prevalence of smokefree home rules between 1999 and 2010 in Minnesota. The Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey is a statewide, cross-sectional, random-digit-dial telephone-based survey. The survey measures tobacco use, behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs among adults aged 18 and older in 1999, 2003, 2007, and 2010. Analysis was conducted in 2011. There was a significant decrease in self-reported exposure to secondhand smoke among all nonsmokers in Minnesota from 2003 (60.9%) to 2010 (37.7%) (p<0.05). The prevalence of smokefree home rules adoption among all Minnesotans increased significantly between each time point: 1999 (64.5%); 2003 (74.8%); 2007 (83.2%); 2010 (87.2%) (p<0.05). Although smokers tended to adopt smokefree home rules at rates lower than nonsmokers, the percentage of smokefree home rules among smokers nearly doubled between 1999 (31.4%) and 2010 (58.1%) (p<0.05). Over 10 years, Minnesotans reported a significant decline in exposure to secondhand smoke and a significant increase in voluntary smokefree home rules. Such a trend is notable as virtually all public tobacco control efforts were aimed at raising awareness and support for smokefree policies within workplaces. These findings demonstrate positive changes in social norms and suggest that behavior change in public settings might also be translated into practice in private settings.

A cross-country comparison of secondhand smoke exposure among adults: findings from the Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS)

ObjectiveExposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) from burning tobacco products causes disease and premature death among non-smoking adults and children. The objective of this study was to determine the nature, extent...

Measuring Indoor Air Quality of Hookah Lounges

Many states have implemented smoke-free workplace laws to protect employees and customers from exposure to secondhand smoke. However, exemptions in these laws have allowed indoor tobacco smoking in hookah lounges to proliferate in recent years. To describe the amount of secondhand smoke in hookah lounges, we measured the indoor air quality of 10 hookah lounges in Oregon. Air quality measurements ranged from "unhealthy" to "hazardous" according to Environmental Protection Agency standards, indicating a potential health risk for patrons and employees.

Changes in smoking-related norms in bars resulting from California's Smoke-Free Workplace Act.

California's Smoke-Free Workplace Act--CA Labor Code Sec. 6404.5(a)--was extended to bars in 1998. This article analyzes changes in normative beliefs and behaviors related to bar smoking in the decade following the adoption of the Act. In a series of studies evaluating the smoke-free workplace law in bars, researchers conducted extensive observations and interviews with bar staff and patrons, health officials, and law enforcement personnel in three California counties. Smoking outside became a normal pause in the social environment and created a new type of bar socializing for outside smokers. Although some bar owners and staff reported initially resenting the responsibility to uphold the law, once norms regarding cigarettes and smoking began changing, bar workers experienced less conflict in upholding the law. Non-smoking behavior within bars also became the normative behavior for bar patrons. California's Smoke-Free Workplace Act has both reflected and encouraged normative beliefs and behaviors related to smoking in bars. The findings indicate that such shifts are possible even in contexts where smoking behaviors and attitudes supporting smoking were deeply entrenched. Recommendations include attending to the synergistic effect of education and policy in effective tobacco control programs.

The impact of banning smoking in workplaces: what are the early effects?

Smoke-free workplace legislation reduces the exposure of both the general public and the workforce to second-hand smoke (SHS) without evidence of an increased exposure to SHS in children in the home. The reductions in exposure are linked to improved respiratory health in previously heavily exposed occupational groups such as bar, restaurant and casino staff. From some countries, there is evidence suggesting that smoking bans have led to declines in hospital admissions for myocardial infarction. There is general agreement that smoking bans, if associated with other tobacco control measures such as tax increases, together with provision of cessation supports, lead to a reduction in the numbers of cigarettes smoked and probably lower smoking rates. Most cities, regions and countries report neutral or positive economic impacts

Positive Impact of the Portuguese Smoking Law on Respiratory Health of Restaurant Workers

The impact of smoke-free law on the respiratory and sensory symptoms among restaurant workers was evaluated. Fifty-two workers in 10 Portuguese restaurants were interviewed before and 2 years after implementation of the smoke-free law. A significant reduction in self-reported workplace environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure was observed after the enforcement of the law, as well as a marked reduction in adverse respiratory and sensory symptoms such as dry, itching, irritated, or watery eyes, nasal problems, and sore or dry throat or cough, between pre- and post-ban. This study demonstrates that the smoking ban was effective in diminishing the exposure symptoms among workers and consequently in improving their respiratory health. These observations may have implications for policymakers and legislators in other countries currently considering the nature and extent of their smoke-free workplace legislation.

Comparative impact of smoke-free legislation on smoking cessation in three European countries

Little is known about the differential impact of comprehensive and partial smoke-free legislation on smoking cessation. This study aimed to examine the impact of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in Ireland and England, and partial hospitality industry legislation in the Netherlands on quit attempts and quit success. Nationally representative samples of 2,219 adult smokers were interviewed in three countries as part of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Europe Surveys. Quit attempts and quit success were compared between period 1 (in which smoke-free legislation was implemented in Ireland and the Netherlands) and period 2 (in which smoke-free legislation was implemented in England). In Ireland, significantly more smokers attempted to quit smoking in period 1 (50.5%) than in period 2 (36.4%) (p < 0.001). Percentages of quit attempts and quit success did not change significantly between periods in the Netherlands. English smokers were significantly more often successful in their quit attempt in period 2 (47.3%) than in period 1 (26.4%) (p = 0.011). In the first period there were more quit attempts in Ireland than in England and fewer in the Netherlands than in Ireland. Fewer smokers quitted successfully in the second period in both Ireland and the Netherlands than in England. The comprehensive smoke-free legislation in Ireland and England may have had positive effects on quit attempts and quit success respectively. The partial smoke-free legislation in the Netherlands probably had no effect on quit attempts or quit success. Therefore, it is recommended that countries implement comprehensive smoke-free legislation.

The impact of state preemption of local smoking restrictions on public health protections and changes in social norms.

Introduction. Preemption is a legislative or judicial arrangement in which a higher level of government precludes lower levels of government from exercising authority over a topic. In the area of smoke-free policy, preemption typically takes the form of a state law that prevents communities from adopting local smoking restrictions. Background. A broad consensus exists among tobacco control practitioners that preemption adversely impacts tobacco control efforts. This paper examines the effect of state provisions preempting local smoking restrictions in enclosed public places and workplaces. Methods. Multiple data sources were used to assess the impact of state preemptive laws on the proportion of indoor workers covered by smoke-free workplace policies and public support for smoke-free policies. We controlled for potential confounding variables. Results. State preemptive laws were associated with fewer local ordinances restricting smoking, a reduced level of worker protection from secondhand smoke, and reduced support for smoke-free policies among current smokers. Discussion. State preemptive laws have several effects that could impede progress in secondhand smoke protections and broader tobacco control efforts. Conclusion. Practitioners and advocates working on other public health issues should familiarize themselves with the benefits of local policy making and the potential impact of preemption.