Literature DB >> 11891365

Application of a rating system to state clean indoor air laws (USA).

J F Chriqui1, M Frosh, R C Brownson, D M Shelton, R C Sciandra, R Hobart, P H Fisher, R el Arculli, M H Alciati.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop and implement a system for rating state clean indoor air laws.
DESIGN: The public health interest of state clean indoor air laws is to limit non-smoker exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Current estimates of health risks and methods available for controlling ETS provided a framework for devising a ratings scale. An advisory committee applied this scale to each of seven site specific smoking restrictions and two enforcement related items. For each item, a target score of +4 was identified. The nine items were then combined to produce a summary score for each state. A state that achieved the target across all nine items would receive a summary score of 36 points and be eligible to receive an additional 6 points for exceeding the target on six of the nine items, resulting in a maximum summary score of 42 points. Individual scores were also adjusted to reflect state level preemption measures. Each state's law was evaluated annually from 1993 through 1999.
SETTING: USA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A summary score measuring the extensiveness of the state's clean indoor air law.
RESULTS: State laws restricting smoking in the seven individual locations of interest were relatively weak. The overall mean score across the location restrictions ranged from 0.72 in 1993 to 0.98 in 1999. Mean scores were higher for the enforcement items than for the location restrictions. Summary scores ranged from 0 to 20 in 1993 and 0 to 31 in 1994 through 1999. Average summary scores ranged from 8.71 in 1993 to 10.98 in 1999. By the end of 1999, scores increased for 22 states; however, between 1995 and 1997 there were no changes in the summary scores. Three states scored zero points across all years. From 1993 through 1999, there was a 41% increase in the number of states that had in place state level preemption measures.
CONCLUSION: The number of newly enacted state clean indoor air laws has remained relatively stagnant since 1995. With a few exceptions, as of the end of 1999, progress in enacting state laws to meet specified public health targets for reducing exposure to ETS was relatively low. Thus, state laws in the USA provide, on average, only minimal protection in specified areas and, given the increase in preemption, are increasingly undermining those passed in localities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11891365      PMCID: PMC1747656          DOI: 10.1136/tc.11.1.26

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  29 in total

1.  Attitudes and experiences of restaurateurs regarding smoking bans in Adelaide, South Australia.

Authors:  K Jones; M Wakefield; D A Turnbull
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  State youth-access tobacco control policies and youth smoking behavior in the United States.

Authors:  D A Luke; K A Stamatakis; R C Brownson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Protection from environmental tobacco smoke in California. The case for a smoke-free workplace.

Authors:  R Borland; J P Pierce; D M Burns; E Gilpin; M Johnson; D Bal
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1992-08-12       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Ending smoking at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. An evaluation of smoking prevalence and indoor air pollution.

Authors:  F A Stillman; D M Becker; R T Swank; D Hantula; H Moses; S Glantz; H R Waranch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-09-26       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Impact of "designated smoking area" policy on nicotine vapor and particle concentrations in a modern office building.

Authors:  W M Vaughan; S K Hammond
Journal:  J Air Waste Manage Assoc       Date:  1990-07

6.  The impact of a total ban on smoking in the Johns Hopkins Children's Center.

Authors:  D M Becker; H F Conner; H R Waranch; F Stillman; L Pennington; P S Lees; F Oski
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-08-11       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  State-specific trends in smoke-free workplace policy coverage: the current population survey tobacco use supplement, 1993 to 1999.

Authors:  D R Shopland; K K Gerlach; D M Burns; A M Hartman; J T Gibson
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.162

8.  Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace. A review of employee exposure and health effects.

Authors:  M Siegel
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-07-28       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  An enforceable indoor air quality standard for environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace.

Authors:  J L Repace; A H Lowrey
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 4.000

10.  Measurement of nicotine in building air as an indicator of tobacco smoke levels.

Authors:  D C Williams; J R Whitaker; W G Jennings
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 9.031

View more
  22 in total

1.  The descriptive epidemiology of local restaurant smoking regulations in Massachusetts: an analysis of the protection of restaurant customers and workers.

Authors:  M Skeer; M Siegel
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Recent trends in home and work smoking bans.

Authors:  D T Levy; E Romano; E A Mumford
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  Clean indoor air ordinance coverage in the Appalachian region of the United States.

Authors:  Amy K Ferketich; Alex Liber; Michael Pennell; Darren Nealy; Jana Hammer; Micah Berman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2010-05-13       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Strength of clean indoor air laws and smoking related outcomes in the USA.

Authors:  K M McMullen; R C Brownson; D Luke; J Chriqui
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  How state counter-industry campaigns help prime perceptions of tobacco industry practices to promote reductions in youth smoking.

Authors:  J C Hersey; J Niederdeppe; S W Ng; P Mowery; M Farrelly; P Messeri
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Changes in hospitality workers' exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York's smoke-free law.

Authors:  M C Farrelly; J M Nonnemaker; R Chou; A Hyland; K K Peterson; U E Bauer
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.552

7.  Measuring the stringency of states' indoor tanning regulations: instrument development and outcomes.

Authors:  Susan I Woodruff; Latrice C Pichon; Katherine D Hoerster; Jean L Forster; Todd Gilmer; Joni A Mayer
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2007-02-05       Impact factor: 11.527

8.  The Tobacco Control Scale: a new scale to measure country activity.

Authors:  L Joossens; M Raw
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 7.552

9.  Rating the effectiveness of local tobacco policies for reducing youth smoking.

Authors:  Sharon Lipperman-Kreda; Karen B Friend; Joel W Grube
Journal:  J Prim Prev       Date:  2014-04

10.  Tobacco control policy and adolescent cigarette smoking status in the United States.

Authors:  Maria T Botello-Harbaum; Denise L Haynie; Ronald J Iannotti; Jing Wang; Lauren Gase; Bruce Simons-Morton
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 4.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.