Smoke-Free Policies in Multiunit Housing: Smoking Behavior and Reactions to Messaging Strategies in Support or in Opposition

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of population-level interventions to tackle smoking behaviour

This preregistered systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD 42022311392) aimed to synthesize the effectiveness of all available population-level tobacco policies on smoking behaviour. Our search across 5 databases and leading organizational websites resulted in 9,925 records, with 476 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. In our narrative summary and both pairwise and network meta-analyses, we identified anti-smoking campaigns, health warnings and tax increases as the most effective tobacco policies for promoting smoking cessation. Flavour bans and free/discounted nicotine replacement therapy also showed statistically significant positive effects on quit rates. The network meta-analysis results further indicated that smoking bans, anti-tobacco campaigns and tax increases effectively reduced smoking prevalence. In addition, flavour bans significantly reduced e-cigarette consumption. Both the narrative summary and the meta-analyses revealed that smoking bans, tax increases and anti-tobacco campaigns were associated with reductions in tobacco consumption and sales. On the basis of the available evidence, anti-tobacco campaigns, smoking bans, health warnings and tax increases are probably the most effective policies for curbing smoking behaviour.

Tobacco treatment clinics in urban public housing: feasibility and outcomes of a hands-on tobacco dependence service in the community

BACKGROUND

As a further extension of smoke-free laws in indoor public places and workplaces, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's declaration to propose a regulation that would make housing units smoke-free was inevitable. Of note is the challenge this regulation poses to current tenants of housing units who are active smokers. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a tobacco treatment clinic in public housing. The utilization of the clinic by tenants and tenants' respective outcomes regarding smoking status were used to determine the intervention's effectiveness.

METHODS

Tobacco treatment clinics were held in two urban-based housing units for 1-year. The clinics provided on-site motivational interviewing and prescriptions for pharmacological agents if warranted. Outcomes collected include the tenants' clinic attendance and 3- and 6-month self-reported smoking status.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine tobacco treatment clinic sessions were implemented, recruiting 47 tenants to participate in smoking cessation. The mean age of the cohort was 53 ± 12.3 years old. Of the 47 tenants who participated, 21 (44.7%) attended three or more clinic sessions. At the 3-month mark, five (10.6%) tenants were identified to have quit smoking; at 6-months, 13 (27.7%) tenants had quit smoking. All 13 of the tenants who quit smoking at the end of 6-months attended three or more sessions.

CONCLUSION

An on-site tobacco treatment clinic to provide strategies on smoking cessation was feasible. Efforts are warranted to ensure more frequent follow-ups for tenants aiming to quit smoking. While further resources should be allocated to help tenants comply with smoke-free housing units' regulations, we believe an on-site tobacco treatment clinic is impactful.

Impact of population tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking: a systematic review and appraisal of future research directions

BACKGROUND

While price increases and targeted cessation support have been found to reduce inequalities in smoking by socioeconomic status (SES), evidence on other measures is mixed. We aimed to update the most recent (2014) previous review by identifying and appraising evidence published since 2013 on the equity impact of population tobacco control measures.

METHODS

Systematic searching of 10 electronic databases and hand-searching of four key journals identified 68 primary research articles published since 2013 that sought to examine the equity impact of population tobacco control measures in high-income countries with a negative socioeconomic gradient in smoking. Reported equity impacts were categorised as positive (greater impact among lower SES), neutral (no difference by SES), negative (greater impact among higher SES) or mixed/unclear.

RESULTS

There was substantial growth in research seeking to evaluate the equity impact of tobacco control interventions, but the majority of new studies showed mixed/unclear results. Findings for price increases and targeted cessation support continue to suggest an equity-positive impact, but limitations in the available evidence make further assessment difficult. Substantial differences in the context, scale and implementation of tobacco control policies make straightforward comparison of findings from the previous 2014 and current reviews problematic.

CONCLUSION

Researchers need to adopt more sophisticated, multidisciplinary approaches in evaluating the equity impact of tobacco control measures-developing robust measures of equity effect and using frameworks that take account of context, existing systems/processes and the likely mechanisms of action. Socioeconomic differences in intervention impact within low-income and middle-income countries require evaluation.

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.

Persistent tobacco smoke residue in multiunit housing: Legacy of permissive indoor smoking policies and challenges in the implementation of smoking bans

Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a common indoor pollutant in multiunit housing (MUH). It is also the precursor of thirdhand smoke (THS), the toxic mixture of tobacco smoke residue that accumulates in indoor environments where tobacco has been used. This study examined the levels, distribution, and factors associated with THS pollution in low-income MUH. Interviews were conducted 2016-2018 in a cross-sectional study of N = 220 MUH homes in San Diego, California. Two surface wipe samples were collected per home and analyzed for nicotine, a THS marker, using liquid chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. Nicotine was detected in all homes of nonsmokers with indoor smoking bans (Geo Mean = 1.67 µg/m²; 95% CI = [1.23;2.30]) and smokers regardless of an indoor ban (Geo Mean = 4.80 µg/m²; 95% CI = [1.89;12.19]). Approximately 10% of nonsmokers' homes with smoking bans showed nicotine levels higher than the average level in homes of smokers without smoking bans from previous studies (≥30 µg/m²). Housing for seniors, smoking bans on balconies, indoor tobacco use, difficult to reach surfaces, and self-reported African-American race/ethnicity were independently associated with higher THS levels. Individual cases demonstrated that high levels of surface nicotine may persist in nonsmoker homes for years after tobacco use even in the presence of indoor smoking bans. To achieve MUH free of tobacco smoke pollutants, attention must be given to identifying and remediating highly polluted units and to implementing smoking policies that prevent new accumulation of THS. As THS is a form of toxic tobacco product waste, responsibility for preventing and mitigating harmful impacts should include manufacturers, suppliers, and retailers.

Implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies in public housing

Smoke-free policies such as those required by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development have the potential to reduce persistent income-related disparities in secondhand smoke exposure. To understand the implementation and enforcement process, as well as barriers and facilitators to compliance and enforcement, we conducted semi-structured interviews (n=37) with representatives from 23 Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) with some level of smoking restriction in place, along with residents from 14 of these PHAs, from January to August 2016. Residents were typically notified of the new policy through group meetings, new resident orientations and/or one-on-one discussions during lease renewal or annual recertification. Timing of implementation varied, with advanced notice of 6 months or a year most common. Enforcement typically involved a series of verbal and/or written warnings, followed by written notice of lease violation, and eventual notice of lease termination and/or eviction. Challenges in enforcement were generally classified as monitoring difficulties or legal concerns. Characterizing current practices (e.g. advance notice, clear communication of escalating consequences, cessation support and concrete evidence of violation) from early adopters sets the stage for identifying best practices and helps to ensure successful and fair implementation of smoke-free policies in subsidized housing.

Qualitative Assessment of Smoke-Free Policy Implementation in Low-Income Housing: Enhancing Resident Compliance

PURPOSE

As public housing agencies and other low-income housing providers adopt smoke-free policies, data are needed to inform implementation approaches that support compliance.

DESIGN

Focused ethnography used including qualitative interviews with staff, focus groups with residents, and property observations.

SETTING

Four low-income housing properties in Massachusetts, 12 months postpolicy adoption.

PARTICIPANTS

Individual interviews (n = 17) with property staff (managers, resident service coordinators, maintenance, security, and administrators) and focus groups with resident smokers (n = 28) and nonsmokers (n = 47).

MEASURES

Informed by the social-ecological model: intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, and community factors relating to compliance were assessed.

ANALYSIS

Utilized MAXQDA in a theory-driven immersion/crystallization analytic process with cycles of raw data examination and pattern identification until no new themes emerged.

RESULTS

Self-reported secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) was reduced but not eliminated. Challenges included relying on ambivalent maintenance staff and residents to report violations, staff serving as both enforcers and smoking cessation counsellors, and inability to enforce on nights and weekends. Erroneous knowledge of the policy, perception that SHSe is not harmful to neighbors, as well as believing that smokers were losing their autonomy and being unfairly singled out when other resident violations were being unaddressed, hindered policy acceptance among resident smokers. The greatest challenge to compliance was the lack of allowable outdoor smoking areas that may have reduced the burden of the policy on smokers.

CONCLUSION

Smoke-free policy implementation to support compliance could be enhanced with information about SHSe for smokers and nonsmokers, cessation support from external community partners, discussion forums for maintenance staff, resident inclusion in decision-making, and framing the policy as part of a broader wellness initiative.

Perceptions about the Federally Mandated Smoke-Free Housing Policy among Residents Living in Public Housing in New York City

Background: To assess residents’ attitudes towards the United States (U.S.) Department of Housing and Urban Development’s new smoke-free public housing policy, perceptions about barriers to policy implementation, and suggestions for optimizing implementation. Methods: In 2017, we conducted 10 focus groups among 91 residents (smokers and nonsmokers) living in New York City public housing. Results: Smokers and nonsmokers expressed skepticism about the public housing authority’s capacity to enforce the policy due to widespread violations of the current smoke-free policy in common areas and pervasive use of marijuana in buildings. Most believed that resident engagement in the roll-out and providing smoking cessation services was important for compliance. Resident expressed concerns about evictions and worried that other building priorities (i.e., repairs, drug use) would be ignored with the focus now on smoke-free housing. Conclusions: Resident-endorsed strategies to optimize implementation effectiveness include improving the access to cessation services, ongoing resident engagement, education and communication to address misconceptions and concerns about enforcement, and placing smoke-free homes in a larger public housing authority healthy housing agenda.

Massachusetts Medicaid members that smoked in 2008: Characteristics associated with smoking status in 2014

The smoking rate among non-elderly Medicaid enrollees is more than double the rate for those privately insured; smoking-related conditions account for 15% of Medicaid expenditures. Under state health reform, Massachusetts Medicaid (MassHealth) made tobacco cessation treatment available beginning in 2006. We used surveys conducted in 2008 and 2014 to examine changes in smoking abstinence rates among MassHealth members identified as smokers and to identify factors associated with being a former smoker. Members previously identified as smokers were surveyed by mail or phone; 2008 and 2014 samples included 3,116 and 2,971 members, respectively. Surveys collected demographic and health information, asked members whether they smoked cigarettes "every day, some days or not at all', and asked questions to assess smoking intensity among current smokers. The 2014 survey included an open ended-question asking members "what helped the most" in quitting or quit attempts. We observed a significant decrease in members reporting smoking "every/some days" of 15.5 percentage points (p < .0001) from 2008 to 2014, and a significant decrease in smokers reporting smoking "more than 10 cigarettes on days smoked" of 16.7 percentage points (p < .0001). Compared to smokers, former smokers more frequently reported health concerns, the influence of family members, and the use of e-cigarettes as helping the most in quitting. Expanded access to tobacco cessation treatment under the Affordable Care Act may have help to reduce the high smoking rates among Medicaid enrollees. Additionally, smokers' concerns about health and the influence of family and friends provide opportunities for targeted intervention and messaging about quitting.

Clearing the Air: Smoke-Free Housing Policies, Smoking, and Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Affordable Housing Residents in Minnesota, 2014-2015

INTRODUCTION

During the past 30 years, local and state tobacco use control laws in the United States have helped reduce smoking prevalence and exposure to secondhand smoke, but progress among low socioeconomic populations has been slow. Implementing smoke-free housing policies in affordable housing may help address this issue. The purpose of our study was to assess how such policies affect smoking rates and exposure to secondhand smoke among residents of affordable housing.

METHODS

We conducted a pretest-posttest longitudinal study of 180 residents from 8 affordable housing properties in Minnesota. Participating properties agreed to adopt a smoke-free housing policy covering indoor grounds, and 3 of these properties also prohibited smoking on all outdoor grounds. Policies were implemented with assistance from local public health departments and the Statewide Health Improvement Program. Participants completed surveys one month before policy implementation and 6 months postimplementation. Surveys assessed smoking, quit attempts, and indoor and outdoor secondhand smoke exposure.

RESULTS

Results indicated a significant reduction in nonsmokers' indoor exposure to secondhand smoke (F1,144 = 22.69, P < .001) and no change in outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke from Time 1 (pretest) to Time 2 (posttest) (F1,140 = 2.17, P = .14). However, when examining sites that only prohibited smoking indoors, we observed an increase in outdoor secondhand smoke exposure that approached significance (F1,118 = 3.76, P = .055). Results showed no change in quit attempts over time, but 77% of residents who smoked at pretest reported reducing the amount that they smoked at posttest, and an additional 5% reported that they had quit.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoke-free housing policies may be an effective strategy to reduce exposure to indoor secondhand exposure and promote decreased cigarette smoking among residents of affordable housing.