Abstract
Objectives
To analyze existing evidence on the impact of two types of location restrictions on smoking: workplace bans and bans in hospitality settings, and to assess the extent to which they differentially affect subpopulations.
Methods
A review of international studies on location restrictions on smoking published between 1990–2007.
Results
Although workplace smoking bans reduce exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) at work, their effects on overall cigarette consumption and smoking prevalence may be uneven across the population. Bans in hospitality settings reduce SHS exposure among workers, but have potentially uneven effects based on the interactions between gender, socio-economic status (SES) and ethnicity. The unintended consequences of smoking bans are also more likely to be experienced by low SES groups.
Conclusions
Although location restrictions on smoking reduce SHS exposure and may serve to positively impact smoking behaviours, there is preliminary evidence that they may have a reduced impact on subpopulations such as low-income groups, although further research is needed.
Key words: Smoking restrictions, secondhand smoke, literature review, diversity, health disparities, tobacco policies
Résumé
Objectifs
Analyser les données actuelles sur l’impact de restrictions relatives à l’usage du tabac dans deux types d’endroits: en milieu de travail et dans les bars et restaurants. Évaluer comment ces restrictions touchent différemment les sous-populations.
Méthode
Analyse d’études internationales publiées entre 1990 et 2007 sur les restrictions à l’usage du tabac dans les lieux publics.
Résultats
Bien que l’interdiction de fumer réduise l’exposition à la fumée secondaire au travail, les effets sur la consommation générale de cigarettes et sur la prévalence du tabagisme peuvent être inégaux dans la population. L’interdiction de fumer dans les bars et restaurants réduit l’exposition à la fumée secondaire chez le personnel, mais peut potentiellement avoir des effets inégaux selon les interactions entre le sexe, le statut socio-économique et l’origine ethnique. Les conséquences imprévues des interdictions de fumer auront tendance à être ressenties davantage par les personnes de statut socio-économique faible.
Conclusions
Les restrictions à l’usage du tabac dans certains lieux réduisent l’exposition à la fumée secondaire et peuvent avoir des effets positifs sur l’usage du tabac, mais les données préliminaires démontrent qu’elles peuvent avoir moins d’impact dans des sous-populations telles que les groupes à faible revenu; il faudrait toutefois pousser la recherche en ce sens.
Mots clés: restrictions relatives à l’usage du tabac, fumée secondaire, analyse documentaire, diversité, disparités en santé, politiques sur le tabac
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: This article is based on a rapid review of workplace policies for smoking cessation that the British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health (BCCEWH) completed for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, who funded the project. The activities of the BCCEWH are made possible through a financial contribution from Health Canada. However, the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NICE or Health Canada.
References
- 1.World Health Organization. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Department of Health. Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment — Smokefree Aspects of the Health Bill London. UK: Department of Health; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 3.World Health Organization. Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, the MPOWER Package. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Moher M, Hey K, Lancaster T. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2005. Workplace interventions for smoking cessation. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behavior: Systematic review. BMJ. 2002;325:188–91. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Bayer R, Stuber J. Tobacco control, stigma, and public health: Rethinking the relations. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(1):47–50. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kunst A, Giskes K, Mackenbach J. Socio-economic Inequalities in Smoking in the European Union: Applying an Equity Lens to Tobacco Control Policies. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Department of Public Health; 2004. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Mao Y, Hu J, Ugnat AM, Semenciw R, Fincham S. Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. Socioeconomic status and lung cancer risk in Canada. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30(4):809–17. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.4.809. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Graham H, Der G. Patterns and predictors of tobacco consumption among women. Health Educ Res. 1999;14:611–18. doi: 10.1093/her/14.5.611. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jarvis M, Wardle J. Social patterning of individual health behaviours: The case of smoking. In: Marmot M, Wilkinson J, editors. The Social Determinants of Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Killoran A, Owen L, Bauld L, et al. Smoking cessation: An evidence-based approach to tackling health inequalities? In: Killoran A, Swann C, Kelly M, Ellis S, Kanaris A, Morgan A, et al., editors. Public Health Evidence: Tackling Health Inequalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Greaves L. Gender and Tobacco Control: A Policy Brief. Geneva: World Health Organization/IDRC; 2007. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Greaves L, Jategaonkar N. Tobacco policies and vulnerable girls and women: Toward a framework for gender sensitive policy development. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(Suppl2):ii57–ii65. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.045393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Poland B, Frohlich K, Haines RJ, Mykhalovskiy E, Rock M, Sparks R. The social context of smoking: The next frontier in tobacco control? Tobacco Control. 2006;15:59–63. doi: 10.1136/tc.2004.009886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Greaves L, Johnson J, Bottorff J, Kirkland S, Jategaonkar N, McGowan M, et al. What are the effects of tobacco policies on vulnerable populations? A better practices review. Can J Public Health. 2006;97(4):310–15. doi: 10.1007/BF03405610. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Balbach ED, Herzberg A, Barbeau EM. Political coalitions and working women: How the tobacco industry built a relationship with the Coalition of Labor Union Women. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(Suppl2):ii27–ii32. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.046276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Graham H, Inskip HM, Francis B, Harman J. Pathways of disadvantage and smoking careers: Evidence and policy implications. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(Suppl2):ii7–ii12. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.045583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Moskowitz JM, Lin Z, Hudes ES. The impact of workplace smoking ordinances in California on smoking cessation. Am J Public Health. 2000;90:757–61. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.90.5.757. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Owen N, Borland R. Delayed compensatory cigarette consumption after a workplace smoking ban. Tobacco Control. 1997;6:131–35. doi: 10.1136/tc.6.2.131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Heloma A, Jaakkola MS. Four-year follow-up of smoke exposure, attitudes and smoking behaviour following enactment of Finland’s national smoke-free work-place law. Addiction. 2003;98:1111–17. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00429.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Farrelly MC, Evans WN, Sfekas AE. The impact of workplace smoking bans: Results from a national survey. Tobacco Control. 1999;8:272–77. doi: 10.1136/tc.8.3.272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kinne S, Kristal AR, White E, Hunt J. Work-site smoking policies: Their population impact in Washington State. Am J Public Health. 1993;83(7):1031–33. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.83.7.1031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Gritz ER, Thompson B, Emmons K, Ockene JK, McLerran DF, Nielsen IR. Gender differences among smokers and quitters in the Working Well Trial. Prev Med. 1998;27:553–61. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1998.0325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Levy DT, Mumford EA, Compton C. Tobacco control policies and smoking in a population of low education women, 1992–2002. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:ii20–ii26. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.045542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Allwright S, Paul G, Greiner B, Mullally BJ, Pursell L, Kelly A, et al. Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: Before and after study. BMJ. 2005;331:1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38636.499225.55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Mulcahy M, Evans D, Hammond S, Repace JL, Byrne M. Secondhand smoke exposure and risk following the Irish smoking ban: An assessment of salivary cotinine concentrations in hotel workers and air nicotine levels in bars. Tobacco Control. 2005;14:384–88. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.011635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Fong GT, Hyland A, Borland R, Hammond D, Hastings G, McNeill A, et al. Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: Findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco Control. 2006;15:51–58. doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.013649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Moore RS, Lee JP, Antin TMJ, Martin SE. Tobacco free workplace policies and low socioeconomic status female bartenders in San Francisco. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:ii51–ii56. doi: 10.1136/jech.2005.045591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Lee JP, Moore RS, Martin SE. Unobtrusive observations of smoking in urban California bars. J Drug Issues. 2003;33:983–99. doi: 10.1177/002204260303300410. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Parry O, Platt S, Thomson C. Out of sight, out of mind: Workplace smoking bans and the relocation of smoking at work. Health Promot Int. 2000;15:125–33. doi: 10.1093/heapro/15.2.125. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Baile WF, Gibertini M, Ulschak F, Snow-Antle S, Hann D. Impact of a hospital smoking ban: Changes in tobacco use and employee attitudes. Addict Behav. 1991;16:419–26. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(91)90050-R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wakefield MA, Wilson D, Owen N, Esterman A, Roberts L. Workplace smoking restrictions, occupational status, and reduced cigarette consumption. J Occup Med. 1992;34:693–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Chapman S, Haddad S, Sindhusake D. Do work-place smoking bans cause smokers to smoke “harder”? Results from a naturalistic observational study. Addiction. 1997;92:607–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Adda J, Cornaglia F. The Effects of Taxes and Bans on Passive Smoking (Rep. No. Discussion paper No. 509) 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Greaves L, Vallone D, Velicer W. Special effects: Tobacco policies and low socioeconomic status girls and women. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:ii1–ii2. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.052480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]