Girija Syamlal1, Brian A King2, Jacek M Mazurek3. 1. Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, West Virginia. Electronic address: gos2@cdc.gov. 2. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morgantown, West Virginia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Workplace tobacco control interventions reduce smoking and secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. workers. Data on smoke-free workplace policy coverage and cessation programs by industry and occupation are limited. This study assessed smoke-free workplace policies and employer-offered cessation programs among U.S. workers, by industry and occupation. METHODS: Data from the 2014-2015 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, a random sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized population, were analyzed in 2018. Self-reported smoke-free policy coverage and employer-offered cessation programs were assessed among working adults aged ≥18 years, overall and by occupation and industry. Respondents were considered to have a 100% smoke-free policy if they indicated smoking was not permitted in any indoor areas of their workplace, and to have a cessation program if their employer offered any stop-smoking program within the past year. RESULTS: Overall, 80.3% of indoor workers reported having smoke-free policies at their workplace and 27.2% had cessation programs. Smoke-free policy coverage was highest among workers in the education services (90.6%) industry and lowest among workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry (64.1%). Employer-offered cessation programs were significantly higher among workers reporting 100% smoke-free workplace policies (30.9%) than those with partial/no policies (23.3%) and were significantly higher among indoor workers (29.2%) than outdoor workers (15.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. workers, 100% smoke-free policy and cessation program coverage varies by industry and occupation. Lower smoke-free policy coverage and higher tobacco use in certain industry and occupation groups suggests opportunities for workplace tobacco control interventions to reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure.
INTRODUCTION: Workplace tobacco control interventions reduce smoking and secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. workers. Data on smoke-free workplace policy coverage and cessation programs by industry and occupation are limited. This study assessed smoke-free workplace policies and employer-offered cessation programs among U.S. workers, by industry and occupation. METHODS: Data from the 2014-2015 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, a random sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized population, were analyzed in 2018. Self-reported smoke-free policy coverage and employer-offered cessation programs were assessed among working adults aged ≥18 years, overall and by occupation and industry. Respondents were considered to have a 100% smoke-free policy if they indicated smoking was not permitted in any indoor areas of their workplace, and to have a cessation program if their employer offered any stop-smoking program within the past year. RESULTS: Overall, 80.3% of indoor workers reported having smoke-free policies at their workplace and 27.2% had cessation programs. Smoke-free policy coverage was highest among workers in the education services (90.6%) industry and lowest among workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry (64.1%). Employer-offered cessation programs were significantly higher among workers reporting 100% smoke-free workplace policies (30.9%) than those with partial/no policies (23.3%) and were significantly higher among indoor workers (29.2%) than outdoor workers (15.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among U.S. workers, 100% smoke-free policy and cessation program coverage varies by industry and occupation. Lower smoke-free policy coverage and higher tobacco use in certain industry and occupation groups suggests opportunities for workplace tobacco control interventions to reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure.
Authors: Christopher D Barr; David M Diez; Yun Wang; Francesca Dominici; Jonathan M Samet Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Geoffrey M Calvert; Sara E Luckhaupt; Aaron Sussell; James M Dahlhamer; Brian W Ward Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: David Cal Ham; Thomas Przybeck; Jaime R Strickland; Douglas A Luke; Laura J Bierut; Bradley A Evanoff Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Stephen Babb; Benmei Liu; Brandon Kenemer; Carissa Baker Holmes; Anne M Hartman; James T Gibson; Brian A King Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: S Jane Henley; Cheryll C Thomas; Denise Riedel Lewis; Elizabeth M Ward; Farhad Islami; Manxia Wu; Hannah K Weir; Susan Scott; Recinda L Sherman; Jiemin Ma; Betsy A Kohler; Kathleen Cronin; Ahmedin Jemal; Vicki B Benard; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Andrea R Titus; Lucie Kalousova; Rafael Meza; David T Levy; James F Thrasher; Michael R Elliott; Paula M Lantz; Nancy L Fleischer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Amanda L Graham; Michael S Amato; Megan A Jacobs; Alexa R Romberg; Megan C Diaz; Basmah Rahman; Barbara A Schillo Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2020-12 Impact factor: 2.306