AIM: To explore compliance with the smoke-free legislation within a cross-section of community bars in Scotland. DESIGN: Ethnographic case study combining unobtrusive observation and in-depth interviews conducted pre- and post-introduction. SETTING: Eight Scottish community bars in three contrasting study communities. PARTICIPANTS: Ten bar proprietors, 16 bar workers and 44 customers. Measurements Observations and participant reports of compliance over the first 12 months of the smoking ban. FINDINGS: All eight study bars endeavoured to enforce the ban, but with varying enthusiasm. Compliance varied, with violations more prevalent in those bars serving deprived communities. Most violations occurred in peripheral areas and generally went unchallenged. Six bars reported some form of complicit behaviour with staff and customers smoking together, either in the entrance area or during 'lock-ins' when access to the bar was restricted to regular customers. Three factors were particularly important to explaining variance between bars: smoking norms, management competency and management attitudes towards the ban. The first and last were related to social disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS: Official data provide only a crude assessment of compliance in licensed premises. Data from this study offer a detailed picture of the nature and levels of compliance, and suggest a need for more sophisticated surveillance methods, greater enforcement and use of prosecutions where merited, and targeted support for bars serving deprived communities to help ensure that the major gains already achieved are retained and built upon. It is also suggested that acceptance of the smoke-free legislation could be enhanced by complementary initiatives targeting support to smokers in deprived communities. Those planning to introduce smoke-free legislation need to set in place these measures in advance in order to realize the benefits of full compliance.
AIM: To explore compliance with the smoke-free legislation within a cross-section of community bars in Scotland. DESIGN: Ethnographic case study combining unobtrusive observation and in-depth interviews conducted pre- and post-introduction. SETTING: Eight Scottish community bars in three contrasting study communities. PARTICIPANTS: Ten bar proprietors, 16 bar workers and 44 customers. Measurements Observations and participant reports of compliance over the first 12 months of the smoking ban. FINDINGS: All eight study bars endeavoured to enforce the ban, but with varying enthusiasm. Compliance varied, with violations more prevalent in those bars serving deprived communities. Most violations occurred in peripheral areas and generally went unchallenged. Six bars reported some form of complicit behaviour with staff and customers smoking together, either in the entrance area or during 'lock-ins' when access to the bar was restricted to regular customers. Three factors were particularly important to explaining variance between bars: smoking norms, management competency and management attitudes towards the ban. The first and last were related to social disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS: Official data provide only a crude assessment of compliance in licensed premises. Data from this study offer a detailed picture of the nature and levels of compliance, and suggest a need for more sophisticated surveillance methods, greater enforcement and use of prosecutions where merited, and targeted support for bars serving deprived communities to help ensure that the major gains already achieved are retained and built upon. It is also suggested that acceptance of the smoke-free legislation could be enhanced by complementary initiatives targeting support to smokers in deprived communities. Those planning to introduce smoke-free legislation need to set in place these measures in advance in order to realize the benefits of full compliance.
Authors: Gera E Nagelhout; Ute Mons; Shane Allwright; Romain Guignard; François Beck; Geoffrey T Fong; Hein de Vries; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Brian A King; Andrew J Hyland; Ron Borland; Ann McNeill; K Michael Cummings Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Peter Craig; Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi; Alastair Leyland; Frank Popham Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2017-01-11 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Deborah Ritchie; Amanda Amos; Richard Phillips; Sarah Cunningham-Burley; Claudia Martin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-04-22 Impact factor: 3.295