Sara M Kennedy1, Shane P Davis2, Stacy L Thorne2. 1. Biostatistics and Epidemiology, RTI International, Atlanta, GA; vnd2@cdc.gov. 2. Epidemiology Branch, Office on Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite progress in limiting exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in the United States, little is known about the impact of smoke-free polices in prisons and jails. SHS exposure in this setting may be great, as smoking prevalence among inmates is more than three times higher than among non-incarcerated adults. To inform the implementation of smoke-free policies, this article reviews the literature on the extent, nature, and impact of smoke-free policies in U.S. prisons and jails. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Social Services Abstracts databases. We examined studies published prior to January 2014 that described policies prohibiting smoking tobacco in adult U.S. correctional facilities. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Smoke-free policies in prisons were rare in the 1980s but, by 2007, 87% prohibited smoking indoors. Policies reduced SHS exposure and a small body of evidence suggests they are associated with health benefits. We did not identify any studies documenting economic outcomes. Non-compliance with policies was documented in a small number of prisons and jails, with 20%-76% of inmates reporting smoking in violation of a policy. Despite barriers, policies were implemented successfully when access to contraband tobacco was limited and penalties were enforced. CONCLUSION: Smoke-free policies have become increasingly common in prisons and jails, but evidence suggests they are not consistently implemented. Future studies should examine the health and economic outcomes of smoke-free policies in prisons and jails. By implementing smoke-free policies, prisons and jails have an opportunity to improve the health of staff and inmates.
INTRODUCTION: Despite progress in limiting exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in the United States, little is known about the impact of smoke-free polices in prisons and jails. SHS exposure in this setting may be great, as smoking prevalence among inmates is more than three times higher than among non-incarcerated adults. To inform the implementation of smoke-free policies, this article reviews the literature on the extent, nature, and impact of smoke-free policies in U.S. prisons and jails. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and Social Services Abstracts databases. We examined studies published prior to January 2014 that described policies prohibiting smoking tobacco in adult U.S. correctional facilities. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria. Smoke-free policies in prisons were rare in the 1980s but, by 2007, 87% prohibited smoking indoors. Policies reduced SHS exposure and a small body of evidence suggests they are associated with health benefits. We did not identify any studies documenting economic outcomes. Non-compliance with policies was documented in a small number of prisons and jails, with 20%-76% of inmates reporting smoking in violation of a policy. Despite barriers, policies were implemented successfully when access to contraband tobacco was limited and penalties were enforced. CONCLUSION: Smoke-free policies have become increasingly common in prisons and jails, but evidence suggests they are not consistently implemented. Future studies should examine the health and economic outcomes of smoke-free policies in prisons and jails. By implementing smoke-free policies, prisons and jails have an opportunity to improve the health of staff and inmates.
Authors: Ross M Kauffman; Amy K Ferketich; David M Murray; Paul E Bellair; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jacob J van den Berg; Beth Bock; Mary B Roberts; Lynda A R Stein; Peter D Friedmann; Stephen A Martin; Jennifer G Clarke Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Jennifer G Clarke; L A R Stein; Rosemarie A Martin; Stephen A Martin; Donna Parker; Cheryl E Lopes; Arthur R McGovern; Rachel Simon; Mary Roberts; Peter Friedman; Beth Bock Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Benjamin J Apelberg; Lisa M Hepp; Erika Avila-Tang; Lara Gundel; S Katharine Hammond; Melbourne F Hovell; Andrew Hyland; Neil E Klepeis; Camille C Madsen; Ana Navas-Acien; James Repace; Jonathan M Samet; Patrick N Breysse Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Beth Bock; Cheryl E Lopes; Jacob J van den Berg; Mary B Roberts; L A R Stein; Rosemarie A Martin; Stephen A Martin; Jennifer G Clarke Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jesse T Young; Cheneal Puljević; Alexander D Love; Emilia K Janca; Catherine J Segan; Donita Baird; Rachel Whiffen; Stan Pappos; Emma Bell; Stuart A Kinner Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Rachel O'Donnell; Ashley Brown; Douglas Eadie; Danielle Mitchell; Linda Bauld; Evangelia Demou; Richard Purves; Helen Sweeting; Kate Hunt Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 3.006
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