M C Farrelly1, W N Evans, A E Sfekas. 1. Center for Economics Research, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA. mcf@rti.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of workplace smoking restrictions on the prevalence and intensity of smoking among all indoor workers and various demographic and industry groups. DESIGN: Detailed cross sectional data on worker self reported characteristics, smoking histories, and workplace smoking policies were used in multivariate statistical models to examine whether workplace smoking policies reduce cigarette consumption. After analysing the distribution of policies, four main types of workplace programme were defined: (1) 100% smoke-free environments, (2) work area bans in which smoking is allowed in some common areas, (3) bans in some but not all work and common areas, and (4) minimal or no restrictions. SETTING: After environmental tobacco smoke was identified as a health hazard in the mid-1980s, workplace smoking restrictions became more prevalent. By 1993, nearly 82% of indoor workers faced some restriction on workplace smoking and 47% worked in 100% smoke-free environments. PARTICIPANTS: The database included a nationally representative sample from the tobacco use supplements to the September 1992, January 1993, and May 1993 Current Population Surveys of 97,882 indoor workers who were not self employed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of smoking and number of cigarettes smoked daily by smokers. RESULTS: Having a 100% smoke-free workplace reduced smoking prevalence by 6 percentage points and average daily consumption among smokers by 14% relative to workers subject to minimal or no restrictions. The impact of work area bans was lessened by allowing smoking in some common areas. Smoke-free policies reduced smoking for all demographic groups and in nearly all industries. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring all workplaces to be smoke free would reduce smoking prevalence by 10%. Workplace bans have their greatest impact on groups with the highest rates of smoking.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of workplace smoking restrictions on the prevalence and intensity of smoking among all indoor workers and various demographic and industry groups. DESIGN: Detailed cross sectional data on worker self reported characteristics, smoking histories, and workplace smoking policies were used in multivariate statistical models to examine whether workplace smoking policies reduce cigarette consumption. After analysing the distribution of policies, four main types of workplace programme were defined: (1) 100% smoke-free environments, (2) work area bans in which smoking is allowed in some common areas, (3) bans in some but not all work and common areas, and (4) minimal or no restrictions. SETTING: After environmental tobacco smoke was identified as a health hazard in the mid-1980s, workplace smoking restrictions became more prevalent. By 1993, nearly 82% of indoor workers faced some restriction on workplace smoking and 47% worked in 100% smoke-free environments. PARTICIPANTS: The database included a nationally representative sample from the tobacco use supplements to the September 1992, January 1993, and May 1993 Current Population Surveys of 97,882 indoor workers who were not self employed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of smoking and number of cigarettes smoked daily by smokers. RESULTS: Having a 100% smoke-free workplace reduced smoking prevalence by 6 percentage points and average daily consumption among smokers by 14% relative to workers subject to minimal or no restrictions. The impact of work area bans was lessened by allowing smoking in some common areas. Smoke-free policies reduced smoking for all demographic groups and in nearly all industries. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring all workplaces to be smoke free would reduce smoking prevalence by 10%. Workplace bans have their greatest impact on groups with the highest rates of smoking.
Authors: Elizabeth A Gilpin; Arthur J Farkas; Sherry L Emery; Christopher F Ake; John P Pierce Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: J F Chriqui; M Frosh; R C Brownson; D M Shelton; R C Sciandra; R Hobart; P H Fisher; R el Arculli; M H Alciati Journal: Tob Control Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Alberto J Caban-Martinez; David J Lee; Elizabeth Goodman; Evelyn P Davila; Lora E Fleming; William G LeBlanc; Kristopher L Arheart; Kathryn E McCollister; Sharon L Christ; Frederick J Zimmerman; Carles Muntaner; Julie A Hollenbeck Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Kristen M Hassmiller; Kenneth E Warner; David Mendez; David T Levy; Eduardo Romano Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Carla J Berg; Christine M Daley; Niaman Nazir; Angel Cully; Christina M Pacheco; Taneisha Buchanan; Jasjit S Ahuwalia; K Allen Greiner; Won S Choi Journal: J Health Dispar Res Pract Date: 2012-01-01