Mary E Cramer1, Sara Roberts, Elizabeth Stevens. 1. Community-based Health Department, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Nursing and College of Public Health, Omaha, Nebraska, USA. mecramer@unmc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study purpose was to describe multiunit landlord attitudes and behaviors toward smoke-free policies. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: This was a descriptive, cross-sectional survey of multiunit landlords in Douglas County (N=392). MEASURES: A 25-item survey was developed and pilot tested. It was administered by telephone (n=143) and mail (n=249) to multiunit landlords. RESULTS: Combined response rate was 30.1% (81/143 telephone, 37/249 mail) representing 24,080 units on 974 properties with 34,399 tenants. Most respondents (73.7%) allowed smoking. Reasons for not implementing smoke-free policies were potential enforcement problems (57.0%), tenant objections (43.0%), loss of market share (39.5%). Respondents without smoke-free policies expected vacancy (53.6%) and turnover (50.0%) rates to increase, which was significantly different (p <.0001) than respondents with smoke-free policies where only 10.7% reported increased vacancy and only 3.7% reported increased turnover. CONCLUSIONS: Expected adverse impacts of smoke-free policies do not reflect real experiences of smoke-free policy implementation. Public health advocates can use these study findings to develop community-based education and social marketing messages directed at voluntary smoke-free policy changes. Respondents without smoke-free policies expressed interest at the end of the survey in learning how to implement smoke-free policies indicating a readiness for change.
OBJECTIVE: The study purpose was to describe multiunit landlord attitudes and behaviors toward smoke-free policies. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: This was a descriptive, cross-sectional survey of multiunit landlords in Douglas County (N=392). MEASURES: A 25-item survey was developed and pilot tested. It was administered by telephone (n=143) and mail (n=249) to multiunit landlords. RESULTS: Combined response rate was 30.1% (81/143 telephone, 37/249 mail) representing 24,080 units on 974 properties with 34,399 tenants. Most respondents (73.7%) allowed smoking. Reasons for not implementing smoke-free policies were potential enforcement problems (57.0%), tenant objections (43.0%), loss of market share (39.5%). Respondents without smoke-free policies expected vacancy (53.6%) and turnover (50.0%) rates to increase, which was significantly different (p <.0001) than respondents with smoke-free policies where only 10.7% reported increased vacancy and only 3.7% reported increased turnover. CONCLUSIONS: Expected adverse impacts of smoke-free policies do not reflect real experiences of smoke-free policy implementation. Public health advocates can use these study findings to develop community-based education and social marketing messages directed at voluntary smoke-free policy changes. Respondents without smoke-free policies expressed interest at the end of the survey in learning how to implement smoke-free policies indicating a readiness for change.
Authors: Shannon M Farley; Elizabeth Needham Waddell; Micaela H Coady; Victoria Grimshaw; Danielle A Wright; Jenna Mandel-Ricci; Susan M Kansagra Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Karen M Wilson; Michelle R Torok; Robert C McMillen; Jonathan D Klein; Douglas E Levy; Jonathan P Winickoff Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Rachel E Wilbur; Anna H Stein; Elena M Pinzon; Osub S Ahmed; Obie S McNair; Kurt M Ribisl Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Stephanie Diepeveen; Tom Ling; Marc Suhrcke; Martin Roland; Theresa M Marteau Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 3.295