OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability and impact of anti-smoking policies in three prisons in Switzerland. METHODS: A before-after intervention study in A) an open prison for sentenced prisoners, B) a closed prison for sentenced prisoners, and C) a prison for pretrial detainees. Prisoners and staff were surveyed before (2009, n=417) and after (2010-2011, n=228) the interventions. Medical staff were trained to address tobacco dependence systematically in prisoners. In prison A, a partial smoking ban was extended. No additional protection against second-hand smoke was feasible in prisons B and C. RESULTS: In prison A, more prisoners reported receiving medical help to quit smoking in 2011 (20%) than in 2009 (4%, p=0.012). In prison A, prisoners and staff reported less exposure to second-hand smoke in 2011 than in 2009: 31% of prisoners were exposed to smoke at workplaces in 2009 vs 8% in 2011 (p=0.001); in common rooms: 43% vs 8%, (p<0.001). No changes were observed in prisons B and C. CONCLUSIONS: Reinforcement of non-smoking rules was possible in only one of the three prisons but had an impact on exposure to tobacco smoke and medical help to quit. Implementing anti-smoking policies in prisons is difficult in the absence of appropriate legislation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability and impact of anti-smoking policies in three prisons in Switzerland. METHODS: A before-after intervention study in A) an open prison for sentenced prisoners, B) a closed prison for sentenced prisoners, and C) a prison for pretrial detainees. Prisoners and staff were surveyed before (2009, n=417) and after (2010-2011, n=228) the interventions. Medical staff were trained to address tobacco dependence systematically in prisoners. In prison A, a partial smoking ban was extended. No additional protection against second-hand smoke was feasible in prisons B and C. RESULTS: In prison A, more prisoners reported receiving medical help to quit smoking in 2011 (20%) than in 2009 (4%, p=0.012). In prison A, prisoners and staff reported less exposure to second-hand smoke in 2011 than in 2009: 31% of prisoners were exposed to smoke at workplaces in 2009 vs 8% in 2011 (p=0.001); in common rooms: 43% vs 8%, (p<0.001). No changes were observed in prisons B and C. CONCLUSIONS: Reinforcement of non-smoking rules was possible in only one of the three prisons but had an impact on exposure to tobacco smoke and medical help to quit. Implementing anti-smoking policies in prisons is difficult in the absence of appropriate legislation.
Authors: Karine Moschetti; Pierre Stadelmann; Tenzin Wangmo; Alberto Holly; Patrick Bodenmann; Jean-Blaise Wasserfallen; Bernice S Elger; Bruno Gravier Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anne C Spaulding; Gloria D Eldridge; Cynthia E Chico; Nancy Morisseau; Ana Drobeniuc; Rebecca Fils-Aime; Carolyn Day; Robyn Hopkins; Xingzhong Jin; Junyu Chen; Kate A Dolan Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 6.222