Effect of workplace smoking policies on smoking cessation: results of a longitudinal study

Association of cigarette excise taxes and clean indoor air laws with change in smoking behavior in the United States: a Markov modeling analysis

The rates of cigarette smoking in the United States have declined over the past few decades in parallel with increases in cigarette taxes and introduction of more stringent clean indoor air laws. Few longitudinal studies have examined association of taxes and clean indoor air policies with change in smoking nationally. This study examined the association of state and local cigarette taxes and clean indoor laws with change in smoking status of 18,499 adult participants of the longitudinal 2010-2011 Tobacco Use Supplement of the Current Population Survey over a period of 1 year. Every $1 increase in cigarette excise taxes was associated with 36% higher likelihood of stopping smoking among regular smokers. We found no association between clean indoor air laws and smoking cessation nor between taxes and clean indoor air laws with lower risk of smoking initiation. Cigarette taxes appear to be effective anti-smoking policies. Some state and local governments do not take full advantage of this effective policy measure.

Minimal intervention delivered by 2-1-1 information and referral specialists promotes smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a Texas generalisation trial

Background

Replication of intervention research is reported infrequently, limiting what we know about external validity and generalisability. The Smoke Free Homes Program, a minimal intervention, increased home smoking bans by United Way 2-1-1 callers in randomised controlled trials in Atlanta, Georgia and North Carolina.

Objective

Test the programme's generalisability-external validity in a different context.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial (n=508) of English-speaking callers from smoking-discordant households (≥1 smoker and ≥1 non-smoker). 2-1-1 Texas/United Way HELPLINE call specialists serving the Texas Gulf Coast recruited callers and delivered three mailings and one coaching call, supported by an online tracking system. Data collectors, blind to study assignment, conducted telephone interviews 3 and 6 months postbaseline.

Results

At 3 months, more intervention households reported a smoke-free home (46.6% vs 25.4%, p<0.0001; growth model intent-to-treat OR=1.48, 95% CI 1.241 to 1.772, p<0.0001). At 6 months, self-reported full bans were 62.9% for intervention participants and 38.4% for controls (OR=2.19). Texas trial participants were predominantly women (83%), single-smoker households (76%) and African-American (65%); half had incomes ≤US$10 000/year (50%). Texas recruitment was <50% of the other sites. Fewer callers reported having a smoker in the household. Almost twice the callers with a household smoker declined interest in the programme/study.

Conclusions

Our findings in a region with lower smoking rates and more diverse callers, including English-speaking Latinos, support programme generalisability and convey evidence of external validity. Our recruitment experience indicates that site-specific adjustments might improve recruitment efficiency and reach.

Trial registration number

NCT02097914, Results.

The impact of multiple interventions to reduce household exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke among women: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Kalutara district, Sri Lanka

Background

Second-hand smoke (SHS) in households remains a serious public health problem in Sri Lanka, partly due to a lack of voluntary prohibitions of tobacco smoking inside houses. Women are especially at risk of being exposed. Effective community based interventions to reduce the SHS in households targeting women is scarce. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of a multi-component intervention on household SHS exposure among Sri Lankan women.

Methods

Thirty clusters of 25 women (aged 18–65) from 750 households were randomized into the intervention and control groups. Women in the intervention group were exposed to activities which focused on improving knowledge on the health effects of SHS, attitudes towards SHS exposure, right to a smoke-free living and women empowerment against smoking. The duration of the intervention was six months. The comparison group received no intervention. The primary outcome of interest was self-reported SHS exposure in the household within 7 days prior to data collection. The secondary outcomes were exposure in the past 30 days, knowledge of the health risks of exposure, attitudes towards exposure, right to smoke-free living, women empowerment against smoking, and smoking inside the homes.

Results

Final assessment was in 329 (89.6%) in the intervention group and 309 (85.8%) in the comparison group. Following the intervention, significantly lower proportion of women in the intervention group as compared to the control group reported SHS exposure in their households within 7-days (9.2% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.02) and 30-days (13.6% vs. 21.6%, p = 0.008) prior to the post survey. As compared to the control group, significantly higher median scores were observed in the intervention group on the knowledge of the health risks of exposure to SHS (p < 0.001), attitudes on exposure to SHS (p = 0.004), right to smoke free living (p = 0.001) and women empowerment (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Multi-component intervention activities were effective in reducing household exposure to SHS among women.

Trial registration

Sri Lanka Clinical Trials Registry SLCTR/2014/033.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4820-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Minimal Intervention to Promote Smoke-Free Homes among 2-1-1 Callers: North Carolina Randomized Effectiveness Trial

This study examined the extent to which delivery of the minimal Smoke-Free Homes intervention by trained 2-1-1 information and referral specialists had an effect on the adoption of home smoking bans in low-income households. A randomized controlled trial was conducted among 2-1-1 callers (n = 500) assigned to control or intervention conditions. 2-1-1 information and referral specialists collected baseline data and delivered the intervention consisting of 3 mailings and 1 coaching call; university-based data collectors conducted follow-up interviews at 3 and 6 months post-baseline. Data were collected from June 2013 through July 2014. Participants were mostly female (87.2%), African American (61.4%), and smokers (76.6%). Participants assigned to the intervention condition were more likely than controls to report a full ban on smoking in the home at both 3- (38.1% vs 19.3%, p = < .001) and 6-month follow-up (43.2% vs 33.2%, p = .02). The longitudinal intent-to-treat analysis showed a significant intervention effect over time (OR = 1.31, p = .001), i.e. OR = 1.72 at 6 months. This study replicates prior findings showing the effectiveness of the minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes in low-income households, and extends those findings by demonstrating they can be achieved when 2-1-1 information and referral specialists deliver the intervention. Findings offer support for this intervention as a generalizable and scalable model for reducing secondhand smoke exposure in homes.

A minimal intervention to promote smoke-free homes among 2-1-1 callers: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

We tested the efficacy of a minimal intervention to create smoke-free homes in low-income households recruited through the United Way of Greater Atlanta 2-1-1, an information and referral system that connects callers to local social services.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial (n=498) from June 2012 through June 2013, with follow-up at 3 and 6 months. The intervention consisted of 3 mailings and 1 coaching call.

RESULTS

Participants were mostly smokers (79.7%), women (82.7%), African American (83.3%), and not employed (76.5%), with an annual household income of $10,000 or less (55.6%). At 6-months postbaseline, significantly more intervention participants reported a full ban on smoking in the home than did control participants (40.0% vs 25.4%; P=.002). The intervention worked for smokers and nonsmokers, as well as those with or without children.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal intervention was effective in promoting smoke-free homes in low income households and offers a potentially scalable model for protecting children and adult nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure in their homes.

Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption

BACKGROUND

Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and smoking behaviour of those populations they affect.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which legislation-based smoking bans or restrictions reduce exposure to SHS, help people who smoke to reduce tobacco consumption or lower smoking prevalence and affect the health of those in areas which have a ban or restriction in place.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Conference Paper Index, and reference lists and bibliographies of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; July 1st 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans and restrictions affecting populations. The minimum standard was having a ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before and after studies, interrupted-time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies were extracted by one author and checked by a second. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the studies, we did not attempt a meta-analysis. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 50 studies included in this review. Thirty-one studies reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) with 19 studies measuring it using biomarkers. There was consistent evidence that smoking bans reduced exposure to SHS in workplaces, restaurants, pubs and in public places. There was a greater reduction in exposure to SHS in hospitality workers compared to the general population. We failed to detect any difference in self-reported exposure to SHS in cars. There was no change in either the prevalence or duration of reported exposure to SHS in the home as a result of implementing legislative bans. Twenty-three studies reported measures of active smoking, often as a co-variable rather than an end-point in itself, with no consistent evidence of a reduction in smoking prevalence attributable to the ban. Total tobacco consumption was reduced in studies where prevalence declined. Twenty-five studies reported health indicators as an outcome. Self-reported respiratory and sensory symptoms were measured in 12 studies, with lung function measured in five of them. There was consistent evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiac events as well as an improvement in some health indicators after the ban.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to a reduction in exposure to passive smoking. Hospitality workers experienced a greater reduction in exposure to SHS after implementing the ban compared to the general population. There is limited evidence about the impact on active smoking but the trend is downwards. There is some evidence of an improvement in health outcomes. The strongest evidence is the reduction seen in admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is an increase in support for and compliance with smoking bans after the legislation.

Smokefree policies to reduce tobacco use. A systematic review

In 2001, a systematic review for the Guide to Community Preventive Services identified strong evidence of effectiveness of smoking bans and restrictions in reducing exposure to environmental (secondhand) tobacco smoke. As follow-up to that earlier review, the focus here was on the evidence on effectiveness of smokefree policies in reducing tobacco use. Smokefree policies implemented by worksites or communities prohibit smoking in workplaces and designated public areas. The conceptual approach was modified for this review; an updated search for evidence was conducted; and the available evidence was evaluated. Published articles that met quality criteria and evaluated changes in tobacco-use prevalence or cessation were included in the review. A total of 57 studies were identified in the period 1976 through June 2005 that met criteria to be candidates for review; of these, 37 met study design and quality of execution criteria to qualify for final assessment. Twenty-one studies measured absolute differences in tobacco-use prevalence with a median effect of -3.4 percentage points (interquartile interval: -6.3 to -1.4 percentage points). Eleven studies measured differences in tobacco-use cessation among tobacco users exposed to a smokefree policy compared with tobacco users not exposed to a smokefree policy. The median absolute change was an increase in cessation of 6.4 percentage points (interquartile interval: 1.3 to 7.9 percentage points). The qualifying studies provided sufficient evidence that smokefree policies reduce tobacco use among workers when implemented in worksites or by communities. Finally, a systematic economic review identified four studies that, overall, demonstrated economic benefits from a smokefree workplace policy. Additional research is needed to more fully evaluate the total economic effects of these policies.

Individual, social-normative, and policy predictors of smoking cessation: a multilevel longitudinal analysis

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the prospective impact of individual, social-normative, and policy predictors of quit attempts and smoking cessation among Massachusetts adults.

METHODS

We interviewed a representative sample of current and recent smokers in Massachusetts by telephone in 2001 through 2002 and then again twice at 2-year intervals. The unit of analysis was the 2-year transition from wave 1 to wave 2 and from wave 2 to wave 3. Predictors of quit attempts and abstinence of longer than 3 months were analyzed using multilevel analysis. Predictors included individual, social-normative, and policy factors.

RESULTS

Multivariate analyses of 2-year transitions showed that perceptions of strong antismoking town norms were predictive of abstinence (odds ratio = 2.06; P < .01). Household smoking bans were the only policy associated with abstinence, but smoking bans at one's worksite were significant predictors of quit attempts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although previous research showed a strong relation between local policy and norms, we found no observable, prospective impact of local policy on smoking cessation over 2 years. Our findings provide clear support for the importance of strong antismoking social norms as a facilitator of smoking cessation.

Secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is little understanding of the relationship between the strength of workplace smoking policies and the likelihood and duration, not just the likelihood, of exposure to secondhand smoke at work.

METHODS

This study assessed self-reported exposure to secondhand smoke at work in hours per week among a cross-sectional sample of 3650 Massachusetts adults who were employed primarily at a single worksite outside the home that was not mainly outdoors. The sample data were from a larger longitudinal study designed to examine the effect of community-based tobacco control interventions on adult and youth smoking behavior. Participants were identified through a random-digit-dialing telephone survey. Multiple logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the independent effect of workplace smoking policies on the likelihood and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke.

RESULTS

Compared to employees whose workplace banned smoking completely, those whose workplace provided designated smoking areas had 2.9 times the odds of being exposed to secondhand smoke and 1.74 times the duration of exposure, while those with no restrictions had 10.27 times the odds of being exposed and 6.34 times the duration of exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Workplace smoking policies substantially reduce the likelihood of self-reported secondhand smoke exposure among employees in the workplace and also greatly affect the duration of exposure.

Socially cued smoking in bars, nightclubs, and gaming venues: a case for introducing smoke-free policies

OBJECTIVE

To assess smokers' perceived effects of smoking bans in bars, nightclubs, and gaming venues on their smoking behaviour.

DESIGN

Cross sectional structured interview telephone survey of a random sample of smokers.

SETTING

Population survey in Victoria, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample comprised 597 smokers and analyses were conducted on 409 smokers who reported patronising bars, nightclubs or gaming venues at least monthly.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Two outcomes studied were socially cued smoking and readiness to quit as a result of restrictions on smoking in social venues. Respondents were identified as socially cued smokers if they reported attending bars, nightclubs or gaming venues at least monthly and said that they smoke more in these venues. The potential influence of bans in social venues on readiness to quit was measured by asking respondents if they would be more or less likely to quit smoking if smoking were banned in hotels, licensed bars, gaming venues, and nightclubs.

RESULTS

Of all adult smokers, 69% attended bars, nightclubs or gaming venues at least monthly. Of these smokers, 70% reported smoking more in these settings (socially cued smokers) and 25% indicated they would be likely to quit if smoking were banned in social venues. Compared to smokers not likely to quit if there were bans, smokers likely to quit were more likely to be socially cued (odds ratio (OR) 2.64), to be contemplating or preparing to quit (OR 2.22), to approve of bans in social venues (OR 2.44), and to be aged under 30 years (OR 1.73). Compared with smokers not socially cued, socially cued smokers were more likely to be under the age of 30 years (OR 6.15), more likely to believe that there is a safe level of cigarette consumption (OR 2.25), and more likely to have previously made a quit attempt (OR 2.60).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that bans on smoking in bars, nightclubs, and gaming venues could reduce cigarette consumption and increase quitting among smokers who frequently patronise these settings. These beneficial effects are likely to be strongest among younger smokers.

Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the effects of smoke-free workplaces on smoking in employees and compare these effects to those achieved through tax increases.

DESIGN

Systematic review with a random effects meta-analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

26 studies on the effects of smoke-free workplaces.

SETTING

Workplaces in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

Employees in unrestricted and totally smoke-free workplaces.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Daily cigarette consumption (per smoker and per employee) and smoking prevalence.

RESULTS

Totally smoke-free workplaces are associated with reductions in prevalence of smoking of 3.8% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 4.7%) and 3.1 (2.4 to 3.8) fewer cigarettes smoked per day per continuing smoker. Combination of the effects of reduced prevalence and lower consumption per continuing smoker yields a mean reduction of 1.3 cigarettes per day per employee, which corresponds to a relative reduction of 29%. To achieve similar reductions the tax on a pack of cigarettes would have to increase from $0.76 to $3.05 (0.78 euro to 3.14 euro) in the United States and from 3.44 pounds sterling to 6.59 pounds sterling (5.32 euro to 10.20 euro) in the United Kingdom. If all workplaces became smoke-free, consumption per capita in the entire population would drop by 4.5% in the United States and 7.6% in the United Kingdom, costing the tobacco industry $1.7 billion and 310 million pounds sterling annually in lost sales. To achieve similar reductions tax per pack would have to increase to $1.11 and 4.26 pounds sterling.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoke-free workplaces not only protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking, they also encourage smokers to quit or to reduce consumption.

Clean indoor air: advances in California, 1990-1999

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed progress in achieving clean indoor air in California.

METHODS

Data were from large, cross-sectional population-based surveys (1990-1999).

RESULTS

Indoor workers reporting smoke-free workplaces increased from 35.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 33.7, 36.3) in 1990 to 93.4% (95% CI = 92.6, 94.2) in 1999. Exposure of nonsmoking indoor workers to secondhand tobacco smoke decreased from 29.0% (95% CI = 27.2, 30.8) to 15.6% (95% CI = 14.1, 17.1). Adults with smoke-free homes increased from 37.6 % (95% CI = 35.1, 40.1) in 1992 to 73.7% (95% CI = 73.2, 74.2) in 1999; nearly half of smokers in 1999 had smoke-free homes. In 1999, 82.2% (95% CI = 81.5, 82.9) of children and adolescents (0-17 years) had smoke-free homes, up from 38.0% (95% CI = 35.1, 40.9) in 1992.

CONCLUSIONS

California's advances highlight an important opportunity for tobacco control.

Epidemiologic basis for an occupational and environmental policy on environmental tobacco smoke

ETS contains numerous toxins. Robust epidemiologic evidence implicates ETS as a cause of lung cancer and as a primary cause and source of exacerbation of excess respiratory disease. There is also increasing evidence that ETS may be associated with other outcomes, including heart disease. There is currently little doubt that ETS is an important and avoidable health hazard. Unfortunately, ETS is frequently encountered in the workplace--where it is no safer than in other environments and where it presents hazards to exposed workers and to others. A unique aspect of workplace ETS is that exposure is rarely an outcome of essential manufacturing, extraction, or service delivery processes. Moreover, ETS exposure, with its growing list of known hazards, is preventable by engineering or policy means. Implementation of policies to prevent workplace ETS can be highly effective while entailing low costs and yielding primary and secondary benefits to employers and employees. ACOEM strongly supports an increase in the scope and effectiveness of policies and efforts that protect against exposure to ETS in the workplace and elsewhere. To that end, ACOEM supports voluntary, regulatory, and legislative initiatives to eliminate ETS from the workplace, including public spaces such as bars, casinos, restaurants, schools, day-care centers, and public transportation. ACOEM also encourages employers to provide employee training concerning the health hazards of ETS and voluntary personal smoking-cessation programs.