Secondhand smoke and smokefree policies in owner-occupied multi-unit housing

Resident Support for the Federally Mandated Smoke-Free Rule in Public Housing: 2018-2022

This study examines support for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) mandatory smoke-free rule up to four years post-rule among smokers and non-smokers. A repeated cross-sectional design was used where District of Columbia public housing residents aged 18+ (n = 529) completed surveys during three time points: July 2018 (pre-rule), November 2018-March 2020 (post-rule), and September 2020-December 2022 (post-rule + COVID-19). Full support for the rule was indicated by agreeing that smoking should not be allowed in all indoor locations and within 25 feet of buildings. Descriptive statistics showed significant differences in support across time for smokers (5.3%, 30.7%, and 22.5%, respectively) and similar support across time for nonsmokers (48.2%, 52.2%, and 40.0%, respectively). In unstratified regression analysis, pre-rule support was lower than when the rule was in effect (aOR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.25, 0.90), and tobacco users were less likely to support the rule (aOR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.23, 0.50). Stratified logistic regression results showed that pre-rule support was lower among smokers compared to post-rule support (aOR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.03, 0.59); support among nonsmokers did not vary by time. Findings overall indicate low support for the smoke-free rule up to 4 years post-implementation. Engaging residents with the rule and promoting health and well-being may further enhance policy effectiveness and acceptance.

A randomized control trial to support smoke-free policy compliance in public housing

BACKGROUND

Smoke-free housing policies in multiunit housing are increasingly widespread interventions to reduce smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. Little research has identified factors that impede compliance with smoke-free housing policies in low-income multiunit housing and test corresponding solutions.

METHODS

We are using an experimental design to test two compliance support interventions: (A) a "compliance through reduction (via relocation and reduction in personal smoking) and cessation" intervention targets households with smokers and involves support to shift smoking practices to areas beyond the apartment or building setting, reduce personal smoking, and deliver in-residence smoking cessation support services via trained peer educators and (B) a "compliance through resident endorsement" intervention involving voluntary adoption of smoke-free living environments through personal pledges, visible door markers, and/or via social media. We will compare randomly sampled participants in buildings that receive A or B or A plus B to the NYCHA standard approach.

DISCUSSION

This RCT addresses key gaps in knowledge and capitalizes on key scientific opportunities by (1) leveraging the federal mandate to ban smoking in a public housing system of more than sufficient size to conduct an adequately powered RCT; (2) expanding our understanding of smoke-free policy compliance beyond policy implementation by testing two novel treatments: (a) in-residence smoking cessation and (b) resident endorsement, while (3) addressing population and location-specific tobacco-related disparities. At the conclusion of the study, this RCT will have leveraged a monumental policy shift affecting nearly half a million NYC public housing residents, many of whom disproportionately experience chronic illness and are more likely to smoke and be exposed to secondhand smoke than other city residents. This first-ever RCT will test the effects of much-needed compliance strategies on resident smoking behavior and secondhand smoke exposure in multiunit housing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registered, NCT05016505. Registered on August 23, 2021.

Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Smoke-free policies are essential to protect people against tobacco smoke exposure. To successfully implement smoke-free policies that go beyond enclosed public places and workplaces, public support is important. We undertook a comprehensive systematic review of levels and determinants of public support for indoor (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, six electronic databases were searched for studies (published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022) reporting support for (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies in representative samples of at least 400 respondents aged 16 years and above. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual reports using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was proportion support for smoke-free policies, grouped according to location covered. Three-level meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed.

Findings

14,749 records were screened, of which 107 were included; 42 had low risk of bias and 65 were at moderate risk. 99 studies were included in the meta-analyses, reporting 326 measures of support from 896,016 individuals across 33 different countries. Support was pooled for indoor private areas (e.g., private cars, homes: 73%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 66-79), indoor semi-private areas (e.g., multi-unit housing: 70%, 95% CI: 48-86), outdoor hospitality areas (e.g., café and restaurant terraces: 50%, 95% CI: 43-56), outdoor non-hospitality areas (e.g., school grounds, playgrounds, parks, beaches: 69%, 95% CI: 64-73), outdoor semi-private areas (e.g., shared gardens: 67%, 95% CI: 53-79) and outdoor private areas (e.g., private balconies: 41%, 95% CI: 18-69). Subcategories showed highest support for smoke-free cars with children (86%, 95% CI: 81-89), playgrounds (80%, 95% CI: 74-86) and school grounds (76%, 95% CI: 69-83). Non-smokers and ex-smokers were more in favour of smoke-free policies compared to smokers. Support generally increased over time, and following implementation of each smoke-free policy.

Interpretation

Our findings suggested that public support for novel smoke-free policies is high, especially in places frequented by children. Governments should be reassured about public support for implementation of novel smoke-free policies.

Funding

Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation.

Proposal for smoke-free public housing: a systematic review of attitudes and preferences from residents of multi-unit housing

A policy proposal to ban public housing smoking indoors has received support, but it is unclear how certain affected groups, specifically smokers in housing units, perceive such a policy. To review the literature on attitudes and perceptions of housing unit tenants towards an indoor smoke-free housing policy, using various databases, we searched articles for attitudes towards smoking ban enforcement in housing units. We identified fourteen articles. Non-smokers heavily favored indoor policies and current smokers heavily opposed them. Current smokers represented a substantial minority in the reviewed articles, resulting in overall outcomes of the surveys driven by non-smokers. Studies investigating attitudes about housing smoking bans largely represent the views of non-smokers and lack data about barriers and concerns of tenants who do not support a smoke-free policy. Future studies should investigate if such a discrepancy impacts the efficacy of smoke-free housing policies.

Implementing Smoke-Free Housing Policies Among Multiunit Housing Owners in New York City Between 2012 and 2015

Smoke-free regulations are the norm in workplaces and public outdoor areas across New York City (NYC), and smoke-free apartment building regulations are less widespread. In 2017, more than one-third (37.6%) of NYC multiunit housing (MUH) residents reported breathing secondhand smoke (SHS) from neighboring units. In 2015, the NYC Health Department conducted a cross-sectional phone survey among a random sample of NYC low-income and market-rate MUH property owners/managers as a follow-up to a 2012 study. The study compared owners' experiences and attitudes regarding smoke-free policies. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used. Overall, the proportion of owners who have a policy prohibiting smoking in individual units (33% vs 37%) increased between 2012 and 2015. In both waves, owners without low-income units (wave 1: 36%, wave 2: 40%) were more likely to have smoke-free housing policies than those with low-income units (wave 1: 26%, wave 2: 30%). The models adjusted for factors such as current smoking, size and nature of housing units, and several beliefs. Owners in 2015 were more likely to have a smoke-free policy (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.003, 1.564) and, among those without a current smoke-free policy, to have future interest in smoke-free unit policies (AOR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.17, 2.39) than in 2012. An increasing proportion of NYC MUH owners are reducing tenant exposure to SHS and providing them with a healthier environment. We expect to see further expansion of smoke-free housing in NYC as positive norms grow.

Attitudes and experiences with secondhand smoke and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate multiunit housing residents living in six diverse communities in the USA

BACKGROUND

Given that higher smoking rates persist among lower socioeconomic populations, multiunit housing (MUH) environments may result in higher secondhand smoke (SHS) exposures among subsidised MUH residents. This cross-sectional assessment compares experiences with SHS and smoke-free policies among subsidised and market-rate MUH residents living in six US communities.

METHODS

MUH residents (n=1565) were surveyed regarding their smoke-free rules (home and building), SHS exposures and preferences towards smoke-free policies. Binary logistic regression identified predictors of each outcome, focusing on differences by subsidised housing status (subsidised vs market rate).

RESULTS

Among residents enforcing smoke-free home rules (76%, overall), 50% reported SHS incursions into their unit. Only 23% reported living in a smoke-free building; 56% of those living in smoking-allowable buildings reported preferences towards smoke-free building policies. Among market-rate housing residents, smoke-free home (OR=4.18) and building (OR=2.26) rules were significantly higher when children were present. Smoke-free building rules reduced the odds of SHS incursions among market-rate housing residents (OR=0.50), but no association was observed among subsidised housing residents. Non-smoking subsidised housing residents exhibited stronger preferences for smoke-free policies compared with those in market-rate housing.

DISCUSSION

Smoke-free home rules may not protect MUH residents from SHS exposures, particularly in subsidised MUH. Although strong preferences towards smoke-free policies were present overall, subsidised MUH residents may have fewer alternative smoke-free housing options available. Therefore, all publicly funded housing should be smoke free to protect these vulnerable populations. However, continued efforts to encourage privately owned MUH operators to adopt smoke-free policies are also necessary.

The Experience With Smoke-Free Policies in Affordable Multiunit Housing in North Carolina: A Statewide Survey

PURPOSE

Previous surveys of housing operators have identified concerns about enforcement, legal issues, and loss of market share as the main barriers to implementing smoke-free policies in multiunit housing. The purpose of this study was to examine enforcement practices as well as economic and legal outcomes in smoke-free affordable multiunit housing.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Affordable multiunit housing in North Carolina.

SUBJECTS

Affordable multiunit housing properties (n = 1063, 57% response rate).

MEASURES

Property representatives completed a written survey with questions regarding the existence of smoke-free policies, smoke-free policy implementation and enforcement practices, and smoking-related costs.

ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics, χ(2) goodness-of-fit test, and t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 16.5% of properties had policies that prohibited smoking in all residential units. Half (49.8%) of smoke-free properties reported no violations to their policies in the past 12 months. Legal actions to enforce policies were rarely needed and were successful when they did occur. Compared to smoking-allowed properties, smoke-free properties did not experience a loss of market share in terms of occupancy rate (t = .09; p = .93) or residents moving away (χ(2) =. 5; p = .48).

CONCLUSION

Housing operators' concerns about enforcement, legal issues, and loss of market share associated with smoke-free policies are largely unfounded among affordable housing properties in North Carolina. Public health professionals should use messaging strategies that refute these concerns to encourage more properties to adopt smoke-free policies.

Tobacco-Smoke Incursions and Satisfaction Among Residents With Children in Multiunit Housing, United States, 2013

OBJECTIVES

Residents of multiunit housing can be exposed to tobacco smoke even if they do not permit smoking in their homes. Although even low levels of tobacco smoke exposure can cause health problems for children and adults, some landlords are reluctant to ban smoking for fear of decreased occupancy rates or tenant satisfaction. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of tobacco smoke-free policies and tobacco-smoke incursions on housing satisfaction in multiunit housing residences with children.

METHODS

In 2013, 3696 randomly sampled US adult multiunit housing dwellers were invited to participate in a survey, and 3253 (88%) participated. Of these, 3128 responded to the question about having a child in the home, and 835 (27%) reported having a child in the home. We collected data on demographic characteristics, tobacco-smoke incursions, knowledge and attitudes about smoking policies, and housing satisfaction for this sample of 835 residents.

RESULTS

Of the 827 residents who responded to the question, 755 (91.3%) agreed that tenants have a right to live in a tobacco smoke-free building. Although 672 of 835 (80.5%) residents were not cigarette smokers, most lived where smoking was permitted in the units (n = 463, 56.9%) or on the property (n = 571, 70.5%). Of 580 non-cigarette smoking residents who lived where no one had smoked cigarettes in the home for the past 3 months, 144 (25.2%) reported a recent tobacco-smoke incursion. Of these 144 residents, 143 (99%) were bothered. Few (36/143, 25.2%) complained to the landlord. Reasons for not complaining were reluctance to upset neighbors or concern about retaliation. Tobacco-smoke incursions and housing/landlord satisfaction were inversely related ( P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Multiunit housing residents living with children in the United States strongly support smoke-free multiunit housing.

Cigarette smoking and adverse health outcomes among adults receiving federal housing assistance

Cigarette smoking is higher among low-income adults and individuals who reside in federally assisted housing are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of smoking and secondhand smoke exposure. This study assessed smoking-related behaviors and health outcomes among U.S. adults who received federal housing assistance during 2006-2012. National Health Interview Survey data linked with administrative data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development were analyzed; 5218 HUD-assisted adults were assessed. Demographic characteristics associated with smoking, including frequency and consumption, were assessed among adult cigarette smokers. Fourteen adverse health outcomes were examined among cigarette smoking and nonsmoking adults. One-third (33.6%) of HUD-assisted adults were current cigarette smokers. Smoking prevalence was highest among adults aged 25-44 (42.5%), non-Hispanic whites (39.5%), and adults who resided in households with children (37.5%). Half attempted to quit in the past year; 82.1% were daily smokers; and, 35.8% of daily smokers reported smoking 20+ cigarettes a day. Multivariable analyses revealed that compared to nonsmokers, cigarette smokers had increased likelihood of reporting fair or poor health (95% CI: 1.04-1.52), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CI: 1.87-3.06), disability (CI: 1.25-1.83), asthma (CI: 1.02-1.55), serious psychological distress (CI: 1.39-2.52), >1 emergency room visit in the past year (CI: 1.09-1.56), and ≥10 work loss days in the past year (CI: 1.15-3.06). Adults who receive housing assistance represent an at-risk population for adverse health outcomes associated with smoking and secondhand smoke. Housing assistance programs provide a valuable platform for the implementation of evidence-based tobacco prevention and control measures, including smokefree policies.

Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Smoke-free Policy in Philadelphia Public Housing

OBJECTIVES

Multi-unit housing environments remain significant sources of secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, especially for vulnerable populations in subsidized housing. In Philadelphia, the largest US housing authority to implement smoke-free policies, we measured baseline resident smoking-related behaviors and attitudes, and longitudinal exposures to airborne nicotine, during policy development and implementation.

METHODS

In 4 communities, we collected data in 2013, 2014, and 2016, before and after introduction of comprehensive smoke-free policies, interviewing persons in 172 households, and monitoring air-borne nicotine in non-smoking homes and public areas. Average nicotine level differences across years were estimated with multi-level models.

RESULTS

Fifty-six percent of respondents smoked. Only 37% of households were smoke-free, with another 41% restricting smoking by area or time of day. The number of locations with detectable nicotine did not differ before and after policy implementation, with approximately 20% of non-smoking homes and 70%-80% of public areas having detectable nicotine. However, public area nicotine levels were lower in 2016, after policy implementation, than in 2013 and 2014 (-0.19 μg/m3, p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that initial policy implementation was associated with reduced SHS exposure in Philadelphia. As HUD strengthens smoke-free policies, SHS monitoring can be useful to educate stakeholders and build support for policy enforcement.

Tobacco Control and Treatment for the Pediatric Clinician: Practice, Policy, and Research Updates

Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and exposure to tobacco smoke harms children from conception forward. There is no safe level of tobacco exposure. Although overall smoking rates have declined, the advent of new products, such as electronic cigarettes, threatens to perpetuate nicotine addiction without clear health benefits. In addition to reviewing traditional and new tobacco products, we discuss the unique role that pediatricians should play in tobacco treatment and control efforts. New policies and technologies can empower pediatric clinicians and pediatric health care systems to help parent smokers quit, and new policies outside of the health care setting might help prevent smoking initiation as well as improve cessation treatments. Future research is needed to continue to study the consequences of tobacco use exposure as well as the best ways to help patients and parents stop tobacco use.

Exposure to secondhand smoke from neighbours and respiratory symptoms in never-smoking adolescents in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure at home from neighbours in Hong Kong adolescents and its association with respiratory symptoms in never-smokers.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

SETTING

79 randomly selected secondary schools in Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

61,810 secondary 1 (USA grade 7) to 7 students, in which 50,762 never-smokers were identified and included in the analysis of the association between SHS exposure at home from neighbours and respiratory symptoms.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Smoking status, family smoking status, SHS exposure at home from inside the home and from neighbours in the past 7 days, respiratory symptoms and sociodemographic characteristics were reported. Adjusted ORs (AORs) of respiratory symptoms for SHS exposure from the 2 sources in never-smokers were calculated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

In all students, 33.2% were exposed to SHS at home, including 16.2% from inside the home only, 10.0% from neighbours only and 7.0% from both. The prevalence of SHS exposure from neighbours was 17.1%, including 13.5% for 1-4 days/week and 3.6% for 5-7 days/week. In never-smokers (n=50,762), respiratory symptoms were significantly associated with SHS exposure from neighbours with AORs (95% CI) of 1.29 (1.20 to 1.39) for any exposure (p<0.001), 1.21 (1.12 to 1.31) for 1-4 days/week (p<0.001) and 1.63 (1.44 to 1.86) for 5-7 days/week (p<0.001) (P for trend <0.001). Compared with no SHS exposure at home from any source, the AORs were 1.16 (1.07 to 1.25) for SHS from inside the home only (p<0.001), 1.20 (1.11 to 1.31) from neighbours only (p<0.001), and 1.74 (1.56 to 1.94) from both (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SHS exposure at home from neighbours was prevalent in Hong Kong adolescents, and was associated with respiratory symptoms in never-smokers. SHS exposure at home may be underestimated by ignoring the neighbouring source. Smoke-free housing policy is needed to protect children and adolescents from harms of SHS.

Public Policy to Protect Children From Tobacco, Nicotine, and Tobacco Smoke

Tobacco use and tobacco smoke exposure are among the most important health threats to children, adolescents, and adults. There is no safe level of tobacco smoke exposure. The developing brains of children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to the development of tobacco and nicotine dependence. Tobacco is unique among consumer products in that it causes disease and death when used exactly as intended. Tobacco continues to be heavily promoted to children and young adults. Flavored and alternative tobacco products, including little cigars, chewing tobacco, and electronic nicotine delivery systems are gaining popularity among youth. This statement describes important evidence-based public policy actions that, when implemented, will reduce tobacco product use and tobacco smoke exposure among youth and, by doing so, improve the health of children and young adults.

Protecting Children From Tobacco, Nicotine, and Tobacco Smoke

This technical report serves to provide the evidence base for the American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statements "Clinical Practice Policy to Protect Children From Tobacco, Nicotine, and Tobacco Smoke" and "Public Policy to Protect Children From Tobacco, Nicotine, and Tobacco Smoke." Tobacco use and involuntary exposure are major preventable causes of morbidity and premature mortality in adults and children. Tobacco dependence almost always starts in childhood or adolescence. Electronic nicotine delivery systems are rapidly gaining popularity among youth, and their significant harms are being documented. In utero tobacco smoke exposure, in addition to increasing the risk of preterm birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, placental abruption, and sudden infant death, has been found to increase the risk of obesity and neurodevelopmental disorders. Actions by pediatricians can help to reduce children's risk of developing tobacco dependence and reduce children's involuntary tobacco smoke exposure. Public policy actions to protect children from tobacco are essential to reduce the toll that the tobacco epidemic takes on our children.

Early second-hand smoke exposure and child and adolescent mental health: evidence from Hong Kong's 'Children of 1997' birth cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure is associated negatively with childhood behavioural problems in western settings. In a developed non-western setting, we estimated the associations of early SHS exposure during the prenatal and postnatal periods with several aspects of adolescent mental health.

DESIGN

Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the adjusted associations of pre- and postnatal SHS exposure with adolescent mental health.

SETTING

Hong Kong.

PARTICIPANTS

Population-representative "Children of 1997" birth cohort. Behavioural problems at ~11 years were available for 5598, self-esteem at ~11 years for 6937 and depressive symptoms at ~13 years for 5797.

MEASUREMENTS

SHS was categorized as no SHS exposure, occasional prenatal SHS exposure from non-parental sources, daily prenatal SHS exposure from non-parental sources, postnatal SHS exposure from non-parental sources, prenatal and postnatal SHS exposure from non-parental sources, occasional paternal smoking, daily paternal smoking and any maternal smoking. Behavioural problems were assessed from parent-reported Rutter score, self-esteem from self-reported Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory score and depressive symptoms from self-reported Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score.

FINDINGS

Prenatal SHS exposure from non-parental sources was associated with behavioural problems at ~11 years (1.24, 95% confidence interval 0.20-2.28) adjusted for sex, age of assessment, survey mode (for depressive symptoms only), socio-economic position (SEP), mother's birthplace, gestational age and parity; paternal smoking and maternal smoking were associated with more mental health problems but also with lower SEP.

CONCLUSIONS

In Hong Kong, prenatal second-hand tobacco smoke exposure appears to be a risk factor for behavioural problems at age 11 years independent of socio-economic position.

Support for smoke-free multi-unit housing policies among racially and ethnically diverse, low-income seniors in South Florida

Previous studies have gauged support for implementing smoke-free multi-unit housing (MUH) policies in the United States, but none have specifically examined attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse elders living in low-income MUH. We surveyed a convenience sample of elders 62 years of age and older (n = 807) across 24 low-income housing properties in Broward County, Florida in order to assess residents' smoking behaviors, exposure to second-hand smoke, and support for smoke-free policies. The study sample was ethnically and racially diverse with Hispanics comprising more than 61 % of the population, and 22 % identifying as Black or other races. Although close to 22 % of the sample were former smokers, only 9 % of residents reported being current smokers. The majority of residents surveyed supported no-smoking policies: 75 % support no-smoking policies for individual units; 77 % supported no-smoking policies in common areas; and, 68 % supported no-smoking policies in outdoor areas. Over 29 % of residents surveyed reported being exposed to secondhand smoke entering their units from elsewhere in their building. Residents who reported having a home smoking rule were more than twice as likely to support an indoor policy compared to residents who allowed smoking anywhere in their home (OR = 2.36; 95%CI 1.25-4.43; p ≤ 0.01), and nonsmoking residents were nearly three times as likely to support an indoor policy compared to smokers (OR = 2.89; 95%CI 1.44-5.79; p ≤ 0.01). Support for an indoor policy was not modified by age, gender, ethnicity or race. . This study demonstrates that elders living in low-income MUH properties overwhelmingly supported the implementation of smoke-free policies.

Correlates of smoke-free housing policies and interest in implementing policies among multiunit housing owners in New York City

Secondhand smoke exposure is a concern in multiunit housing, where smoke can migrate between apartments. In 2012, the New York City (NYC) Department of Health and Mental Hygiene conducted a cross-sectional mail and phone survey among a random sample of low-income and market-rate multiunit housing owners and managers in NYC. The study compared experiences and attitudes regarding smoke-free policies between owners/managers (owners) with and without low-income units. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the correlates of smoke-free residential unit rules and interest in adopting new smoke-free rules. Perceived benefits and challenges of implementing smoke-free rules were also examined. Overall, one-third of owners prohibited smoking in individual units. Among owners, nearly one-third owned or managed buildings with designated certified low-income units. Owners with low-income units were less likely than those without to have a smoke-free unit policy (26 vs. 36 %, p < 0.01) or be aware that owners can legally adopt smoke-free building policies (60 vs. 70 %, p < 0.01). In the final model, owners who believed that owners could legally adopt smoke-free policies were more likely to have a smoke-free unit policy, while current smokers and owners of larger buildings were less likely to have a policy. Nearly three quarters of owners without smoke-free units were interested in prohibiting smoking in all of their building/units (73 %). Among owners, correlates of interest in prohibiting smoking included awareness that secondhand smoke is a health issue and knowledge of their legal rights to prohibit smoking in their buildings. Current smokers were less likely to be interested in future smoke-free policies. Educational programs promoting awareness of owners' legal right to adopt smoke-free policies in residential buildings may improve the availability of smoke-free multiunit housing.

Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature

OBJECTIVE

Multiunit housing (MUH) residents are susceptible to secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, which can transfer between living units. This review summarises existing scientific literature relevant to smoke-free MUH, discusses knowledge gaps and provides recommendations for future research to inform public health action.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed articles using three databases: EBSCOhost CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

Article titles, abstracts and text were reviewed to ascertain three inclusion criteria: (1) English language; (2) conducted in the USA; (3) reported on baseline data, development, implementation or evaluation of smoke-free MUH.

DATA EXTRACTION

We used a multistep process to identify eligible articles: (1) two reviewers separately evaluated article titles; (2) two reviewers separately evaluated abstracts and (3) one reviewer read each article and determined inclusion eligibility.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified and included 35 articles published during 2001-2014, grouped based on broad themes: MUH resident (n=16); MUH operator (n=6); environmental monitoring and biomarkers (n=9); economic (n=2); legal (n=3); and implementation process and policy impact (n=8). Studies with multiple themes were included in all relevant groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing literature has focused on self-reported, cross-sectional studies of MUH residents and operators; some studies of environmental markers, biomarkers and economic indicators have also been conducted. Future research on smoke-free MUH policy compliance and enforcement, and on the impact of these policies on smoking behaviours and health outcomes, could further inform public health planning, policy and practice. Despite these gaps, the current literature provides sufficient evidence for action to eliminate SHS exposure in MUH.

A statewide assessment of smoke-free policy in multiunit housing settings

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of smoke-free policies in multiunit housing (MUH) in South Dakota was examined. Owner beliefs about smoke-free policies were identified.

METHODS

Stratified random sampling included 27 South Dakota counties classified as frontier, large rural, or urban. Data collection with MUH owners in selected counties employed a telephone survey with mailed backup.

RESULTS

The owner response rate was 41.5% (324/780). A written smoke-free policy was reported by 175 (54.0%) owners, and 31 (10%) reported a verbal smoke-free policy. Owners in large rural counties (57.4%) had more written smoke-free policies than owners in urban (52.2%) and frontier (53.5%) counties. Only 8.5% of properties had policies covering both buildings and grounds. Owners without policies were more than twice as likely to manage U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidized units and were three times as likely to be current smokers. Owners without a smoke-free policy anticipated that a policy would decrease maintenance costs but increase turnover and vacancy rates. Nearly one-half (47.9%) of owners with no smoke-free policy had previously considered implementing a policy. Owners self-reported beliefs about smoke-free policies identified perceived benefits such as decreased maintenance and costs, improved tenant safety and health, and conscientious tenants. Perceived drawbacks included increased outdoor maintenance, enforcement problems, concerns about long-term tenants who smoke, and freedom/rights of smokers.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a baseline assessment of smoke-free polices in MUH settings. Perceptions of owners without smoke-free policies focused on economic concerns that were inconsistent with reports from those owners with smoke-free policies.

Cost savings associated with prohibiting smoking in U.S. subsidized housing

BACKGROUND

Tobacco smoking in multiunit housing can lead to secondhand-smoke (SHS) exposure among nonsmokers, increased maintenance costs for units where smoking is permitted, and fire risks. During 2009-2010, approximately 7.1 million individuals lived in subsidized housing in the U.S., a large proportion of which were children, elderly, or disabled.

PURPOSE

This study calculated the annual economic costs to society that could be averted by prohibiting smoking in all U.S. subsidized housing.

METHODS

Estimated annual cost savings associated with SHS-related health care, renovation of units that permit smoking, and smoking-attributable fires in U.S. subsidized housing were calculated using residency estimates from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and previously reported national and state cost estimates for these indicators. When state estimates were used, a price deflator was applied to account for differential costs of living or pricing across states. Estimates were calculated overall and by cost type for all U.S. subsidized housing, as well as for public housing only. Data were obtained and analyzed between January and March 2011.

RESULTS

Prohibiting smoking in all U.S. subsidized housing would yield cost savings of approximately $521 million per year, including $341 million in SHS-related healthcare expenditures, $108 million in renovation expenses, and $72 million in smoking-attributable fire losses. Prohibiting smoking in U.S. public housing alone would yield cost savings of approximately $154 million per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to prohibit smoking in all U.S. subsidized housing would protect health and generate substantial cost savings to society.