OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of an intervention to encourage the adoption of smoke-free policies among owners and managers of multiunit housing. DESIGN: A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was employed. PARTICIPANTS: The study population included 287 multiunit housing operators (MUHOs) from across New York State who were recruited to complete a baseline survey designed to assess policies about smoking in the housing units that they owned and/or managed. Subjects were surveyed between March and July 2008 (n = 128 intervention, n = 159 control) and recontacted 1 year later to complete a follow-up survey (n = 59 intervention, n = 95 control). INTERVENTION: An informational packet on the benefits of implementing a smoke-free policy was mailed to MUHOs in the New York State counties of Erie and Niagara between March and July 2008. For comparison purposes, a sample of MUHOs located outside of Erie and Niagara counties who did not receive the information packet were identified to serve as control subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of policy interest, concern, and implementation at follow-up. Predictors included: intervention group, baseline status, respondent smoking status, survey type, government-subsidy status, quantity of units operated, and average building size, construction type, and age. RESULTS: Multiunit housing operators who received the information packet were more likely to report interest in adopting a smoke-free policy (OR = 6.49, 95% CI = 1.44-29.2), and less likely to report concerns about adopting such a policy (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.04-0.66) compared to MUHOs who did not receive the information packet; however, the rate of adoption of smoke-free policies was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: Sending MUHOs an information packet on the benefits of adopting a smoke-free policy was effective in addressing concerns and generating interest toward smoke-free policies but was not sufficient in itself to generate actual policy adoption.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of an intervention to encourage the adoption of smoke-free policies among owners and managers of multiunit housing. DESIGN: A pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design was employed. PARTICIPANTS: The study population included 287 multiunit housing operators (MUHOs) from across New York State who were recruited to complete a baseline survey designed to assess policies about smoking in the housing units that they owned and/or managed. Subjects were surveyed between March and July 2008 (n = 128 intervention, n = 159 control) and recontacted 1 year later to complete a follow-up survey (n = 59 intervention, n = 95 control). INTERVENTION: An informational packet on the benefits of implementing a smoke-free policy was mailed to MUHOs in the New York State counties of Erie and Niagara between March and July 2008. For comparison purposes, a sample of MUHOs located outside of Erie and Niagara counties who did not receive the information packet were identified to serve as control subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of policy interest, concern, and implementation at follow-up. Predictors included: intervention group, baseline status, respondent smoking status, survey type, government-subsidy status, quantity of units operated, and average building size, construction type, and age. RESULTS: Multiunit housing operators who received the information packet were more likely to report interest in adopting a smoke-free policy (OR = 6.49, 95% CI = 1.44-29.2), and less likely to report concerns about adopting such a policy (OR = 0.16, 95% CI = 0.04-0.66) compared to MUHOs who did not receive the information packet; however, the rate of adoption of smoke-free policies was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: Sending MUHOs an information packet on the benefits of adopting a smoke-free policy was effective in addressing concerns and generating interest toward smoke-free policies but was not sufficient in itself to generate actual policy adoption.
Authors: Sara M Abrams; Martin C Mahoney; Andrew Hyland; K Michael Cummings; Warren Davis; Liguo Song Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: R Borland; H-H Yong; M Siahpush; A Hyland; S Campbell; G Hastings; K M Cummings; G T Fong Journal: Tob Control Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: N E Klepeis; W C Nelson; W R Ott; J P Robinson; A M Tsang; P Switzer; J V Behar; S C Hern; W H Engelmann Journal: J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol Date: 2001 May-Jun
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: Amy Y Hafez; Mariaelena Gonzalez; Margarete C Kulik; Maya Vijayaraghavan; Stanton A Glantz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Andrea S Licht; Brian A King; Mark J Travers; Cheryl Rivard; Andrew J Hyland Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Judy Kruger; Amal Jama; Michelle Kegler; Kristy Marynak; Brian King Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 3.390