An exploratory analysis of the impact of a university campus smoking ban on staff and student smoking habits in Japan

Tobacco-free university campus policies: A systematic review

Objective: This systematic review aims to provide an update of the scientific evidence regarding tobacco-free/smoke-free campus policies (TFC/SFC), using a complex interventions approach.

PARTICIPANTS/METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases using a combination of 'tobacco-free' or 'smoke-free', 'campus', 'university or college' and 'policy' search terms on all indexed articles published up until June 2023. Studies were included if they presented research on pre-/post-implementation of TFC/SFC or policy components. Two coders extracted and synthesized the data and assessed the risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of 113 studies were included, reporting data from 2005 to 2023 across 17 countries. The data was categorized into three of the four phases of the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework, i.e. "feasibility (n=24), "implementation" (n=34), and "evaluation" (n=69). This review finds that a policy draft, communication, enforcement strategies, and cessation services are critical policy components. TCF/SFC are effective for reducing tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure, but they also increase vaping. Little research has investigated the effect of TFC/SFC on smokeless tobacco use.

CONCLUSION

This review addresses remaining uncertainties in evidence on the TFC/SFC implementation process. We go on to provide a series of recommendations for university administrators.

What are the effects of smoke-free and tobacco-free university campus policies, and how can they be assessed? A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This article looks at the evaluation of smoke-free (SF) and tobacco-free (TF) university campus policies that ban smoking (and often vaping) both indoors and outdoors. To assess the effectiveness of these policies, we performed a systematic literature review to answer the following questions: what is the effect of SF/TF policies on campus users' behaviors/norms/perceptions around smoking? Are the SF/TF policies an effective measure for reducing smoking among young adults? What methods and indicators can we use to assess the impact of SF/TF campus policies? What is the theoretical model underpinning the influence of SF/TF policies on the behavior of campus users?

METHODS

Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched over the period from January 2005 to December 2022. The article selection process included 54 articles published in scientific journals that analyzed the post-implementation impact of SF/TF campus policies. The quality of these articles was analyzed using six ad hoc indicators based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist and Joanna Briggs Institute scoping tools.

RESULTS

Most of the research on SF/TF campus policies has been conducted in the United States using quantitative methodologies. Most of these studies show that SF/TF policies reduce positive beliefs about smoking and its acceptability, influence smoking behavior (reducing smoking initiation and increasing the number of quits and quit attempts), and reduce exposure to passive smoking and pollution from cigarette butts. User acceptability of SF/TF policies is generally high. Limitations of SF/TF campus policies include difficulty for smokers to comply with them, persistence of passive smoking around campuses, and limited uptake of on-campus cessation support services provided to smokers.

DISCUSSION

The various mediating and moderating variables identified in the literature have made it possible to propose a model of the potential influence of SF/TF policy on campus users, based on the theory of planned behavior. Based on this review, we provide health professionals and higher education institutions wishing to implement a SF/TF campus policy with a set of indicators that can serve to assess the impact of a SF/TF campus policy (attitudes, acceptability, beliefs, norms, exposure to passive smoking and pollution, changes in smoking behavior).

CONCLUSION

Based on scientific evidence, the implementation of SF/TF campus policies in France is an important measure to help combat smoking in young adults.

Development and evaluation of smoke-free or tobacco-free policies in university settings: a systematic scoping review

We conducted a systematic scoping review to map the available evidence on smoke-free or tobacco-free (SF/TF) university policies globally. We specifically looked at (i) how policies were developed and communicated and (ii) what indicators were used to evaluate their impact. We searched for peer-reviewed literature, published up to January 2020, across 10 multi-disciplinary databases. We followed a duplicate, independent data selection, and charting process. We inductively categorized the studies according to the research design and objective of 'process' and 'impact evaluation'. We identified 75 unique studies across 23 countries conducted between 1993 and 2019. Most studies were conducted in the United States (46/75, 61.3%), were based on quantitative research design and focused on impact evaluations; a third (n = 28) reported both process and impact evaluations (37.3%). Community engagement and multi-channel communication strategies were mostly used to disseminate SF/TF policies. The impact was determined by a wide range of indicators for knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to policies. There is a mature, relevant body of literature describing the development and evaluation of SF/TF policies in universities. Future reviews could quantify the impact of the bans and may consider process indicators as moderating factors to explain the potential heterogeneity of results.

Predicting students' noncompliance with a smoke-free university campus policy

The adoption of university campus smoke-free and tobacco-free policies has risen dramatically, but research on effective implementation is scant. Significant challenges exist regarding policy implementation, particularly enforcement. This study examined college students' noncompliance with a recently implemented smoke-free campus policy at a public university. The sample included students who reported past-month smoking of tobacco or e-cigarettes in a 2013 web-based survey, 9 months after a smoke-free campus policy took effect. Ordinal logistic regression was used to examine predictors of students' having smoked on campus since the policy began (n = 1055). Predictor variables included past-month use of cigarettes, e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, and non-cigarette tobacco products, secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure, support for a smoke-free campus, tobacco-related social norms, use of strategies to deal with smoking urges, and other variables. In multivariate analysis, policy violation was positively associated with past-month use of cigarettes and non-cigarette combustible tobacco, SHS exposure on campus, living on campus, and use of nicotine gum/patches to handle urges. Violation was negatively associated with smoke-free campus support, age, estimates of student policy support and cigarette smoking, and self-reported absence of smoking urges. Results suggest that nicotine dependence may be an underlying influence on policy violation. Several recommendations are offered. First, upon policy adoption, campuses should ensure student smokers' access to cessation support and assistance with dealing with nicotine cravings. Second, campus information campaigns should focus particularly on younger students and those living on campus. Third, campuses should establish strong anti-tobacco norms, monitor SHS exposure, and communicate levels of students' policy support.

Impact of institutional smoking bans on reducing harms and secondhand smoke exposure

BACKGROUND

Smoking bans or restrictions can assist in eliminating nonsmokers' exposure to the dangers of secondhand smoke and can reduce tobacco consumption amongst smokers themselves. Evidence exists identifying the impact of tobacco control regulations and interventions implemented in general workplaces and at an individual level. However, it is important that we also review the evidence for smoking bans at a meso- or organisational level, to identify their impact on reducing the burden of exposure to tobacco smoke. Our review assesses evidence for meso- or organisational-level tobacco control bans or policies in a number of specialist settings, including public healthcare facilities, higher education and correctional facilities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which institutional smoking bans may reduce passive smoke exposure and active smoking, and affect other health-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the reference lists of identified studies. We contacted authors to identify completed or ongoing studies eligible for inclusion in this review. We also checked websites of state agencies and organisations, such as trial registries. Date of latest searches was 22nd June 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered studies that reported the effects of tobacco bans or policies, whether complete or partial, on reducing secondhand smoke exposure, tobacco consumption, smoking prevalence and other health outcomes, in public healthcare, higher educational and correctional facilities, from 2005 onwards.The minimum standard for inclusion was having a settings-level policy or ban implemented in the study, and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included quasi-experimental studies (i.e. 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

Two or more review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Due to variation in the measurement of outcomes we did not conduct a meta-analysis for all of the studies included in this review, but carried out a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis, pooling 11 of the included studies. We evaluated all studies using a qualitative narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 observational studies in this review. We found no randomized controlled trials. Twelve studies are based in hospitals, three in prisons and two in universities. Three studies used a controlled before-and-after design, with another site used for comparison. The remaining 14 studies used an uncontrolled before-and-after study design. Five studies reported evidence from two participant groups, including staff and either patients or prisoners (depending on specialist setting), with the 12 remaining studies investigating only one participant group.The four studies (two in prisons, two in hospitals) providing health outcomes data reported an effect of reduced secondhand smoke exposure and reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses. No studies included in the review measured cotinine levels to validate secondhand smoke exposure. Eleven studies reporting active smoking rates with 12,485 participants available for pooling, but with substantial evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 72%). Heterogeneity was lower in subgroups defined by setting, and provided evidence for an effect of tobacco bans on reducing active smoking rates. An analysis exploring heterogeneity within hospital settings showed evidence of an effect on reducing active smoking rates in both staff (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.64 to 0.78) and patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98), but heterogeneity remained in the staff subgroup (I² = 76%). In prisons, despite evidence of reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses in two studies, there was no evidence of effect on active smoking rates (1 study, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16).We judged the quality of the evidence to be low, using the GRADE approach, as the included studies are all observational.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence of an effect of settings-based smoking policies on reducing smoking rates in hospitals and universities. In prisons, reduced mortality rates and reduced exposure to secondhand smoke were reported. However, we rated the evidence base as low quality. We therefore need more robust studies assessing the evidence for smoking bans and policies in these important specialist settings.

The spatial distribution of smoking violations on a no-smoking campus: Implications for prevention

OBJECTIVE

The present study extends research on campus smoking bans by examining where smokers are violating the policy at a large university in the southeastern region of the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

The data collection was conducted by one graduate student from the university in August of 2014.

METHODS

A global positioning system device was used to collect the geo-coordinates of littered cigarette butts as a proxy measure for smoking violations.

RESULTS

A hot spot analysis found a number of spatial concentrations on campus, largely around classroom and administrative buildings along with parking lots and garages.

CONCLUSIONS

The implications of such findings can direct enforcement to target these areas in order to reduce offenses and fulfill the initial goals of policy-makers and university administrators who support smoke-free campuses.

Short-Term Impact of a Comprehensive Smoke-Free Law Following a Partial Smoke-Free Law on PM₂.₅ Concentration Levels at Hospitality Venues on the Peripheries of College Campuses

Tobacco-free policies on college campuses are spreading in Korea. However, the impact of the smoking ban legislation at venues on the boundary of a college campus is still limited. This study aimed to assess short-term changes in PM2.5 concentrations before and after the enactment of the smoking ban legislation to evaluate the impact. In this cross-sectional study, PM2.5 measurements (pre-ban: n = 99, post-ban: n = 64) were conducted in randomly selected billiards, pubs, and computer game rooms on the peripheries of college campuses in October 2013, prior to implementation of the smoking ban, and in May 2014, after the ban. The median (interquartile range, IQR) of the PM2.5 concentration for all venues was 31 μg/m³ (0-80 μg/m³) in the pre-ban period and 11 μg/m³ (0-36 μg/m³) in the post-ban period implying indoor PM2.5 concentration levels of the peripheries of college campuses likely decreased one year after implementation of the ban. However, the differences were not significant yet. The results support the introduction of more rigorous monitoring of SHS exposure levels toward the ultimate goal of encouraging a complete smoking ban in hospitality venues, including billiards, pubs, and computer game rooms located on the peripheries of college campuses.