After the smoke has cleared: evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand.
ABSTRACT The New Zealand 2003 Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act (SEAA) extended existing restrictions on smoking in office and retail workplaces by introducing smoking bans in bars, casinos, members' clubs, restaurants and nearly all other workplaces from 10 December 2004.
To evaluate the implementation and outcomes of aspects of the SEAA relating to smoke-free indoor workplaces and public places, excluding schools and early learning centres.
Data were gathered on public and stakeholder attitudes and support for smoke-free policies; dissemination of information, enforcement activities and compliance; exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) in the workplace; changes in health outcomes linked to SHS exposure; exposure to SHS in homes; smoking prevalence and smoking related behaviours; and economic impacts.
Surveys suggested growing majority support for the SEAA and its underlying principles among the public and bar managers. There was evidence of high compliance in bars and pubs, where most enforcement problems were expected. Self reported data suggested that SHS exposure in the workplace, the primary objective of the SEAA, decreased significantly from around 20% in 2003, to 8% in 2006. Air quality improved greatly in hospitality venues. Reported SHS exposure in homes also reduced significantly. There was no clear evidence of a short term effect on health or on adult smoking prevalence, although calls to the smoking cessation quitline increased despite reduced expenditure on smoking cessation advertising. Available data suggested a broadly neutral economic impact, including in the tourist and hospitality sectors.
The effects of the legislation change were favourable from a public health perspective. Areas for further investigation and possible regulation were identified such as SHS related pollution in semi-enclosed outdoor areas. The study adds to a growing body of literature documenting the positive impact of comprehensive smoke-free legislation. The scientific and public health case for introducing comprehensive smoke-free legislation that covers all indoor public places and workplaces is now overwhelming, and should be a public health priority for legislators across the world as part of the globalization of effective public health policy to control the tobacco epidemic.
SourceAvailable from: Mariana F. Fernández[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The smoke-free legislation implemented in Spain in 2006 imposed a partial ban on smoking in public and work places, but the result did not meet expectations. Therefore, a more restrictive anti-smoking law was passed five years later in 2011 prohibiting smoking in all public places, on public transport, and the workplace. With the objective of assessing the impact of the latter anti-smoking legislation on children's exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS), we assessed parent's smoking habits and children's urine cotinine (UC) concentrations in 118 boys before (2005-2006) and after (2011-2012) the introduction of this law. Repeated cross-sectional follow-ups of the "Environment and Childhood Research Network" (INMA-Granada), a Spanish population-based birth cohort study, at 4-5 years old (2005-2006) and 10-11 years old (2011-2012), were designed. Data were gathered by ad-hoc questionnaire, and median UC levels recorded as an objective indicator of overall SHS exposure. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between parent's smoking habits at home and SHS exposure, among other potential predictors. An increase was observed in the prevalence of families with at least one smoker (39.0% vs. 50.8%) and in the prevalence of smoking mothers (20.3% vs. 29.7%) and fathers (33.9% vs. 39.0%). Median UC concentration was 8.0ng/mL (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-21.8) before legislation onset and 8.7ng/mL (IQR: 2.0-24.3) afterwards. In the multivariable analysis, the smoking status of parents and smoking habits at home were statistically associated with the risk of SHS exposure and with UC concentrations in children. These findings indicate that the recent prohibition of smoking in enclosed public and workplaces in Spain has not been accompanied by a decline in the exposure to SHS among children, who continue to be adversely affected. There is a need to target smoking at home in order to avoid future adverse health effects in a population that has no choice in the acceptance or not of SHS exposure-derived risk. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Environmental Research 03/2015; 138. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2015.03.002 · 3.95 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background. Approximately 63.7% of nonsmokers in China are exposed to secondhand smoke (SHS) in their homes. The current study documents the prevalence and correlates of smoke-free home policies in Shanghai, as well as reasons for implementing such a policy and places where smoking is most commonly allowed. Methods. We conducted in-person surveys of 500 participants using a multistage proportional random sampling design in an urban and suburban district. Results. Overall, 35.3% had a smoke-free home policy. In the logistic regression, having higher income, not having smokers in the home, having children in the home, having fewer friends/relatives who permit smoking at home, and not being a current smoker were correlates of having a smoke-free home policy (P < 0.05). Concern about the health impact of SHS was reportedly the most important reason for establishing a smoke-free home. Among participants with no or partial bans, the most common places where smoking was allowed included the living room (64.2%), kitchen (46.1%), and bathroom (33.8%). Conclusions. Smoke-free home policies were in place for a minority of households surveyed. Establishing such a policy was influenced by personal smoking behavior and social factors. These findings suggest an urgent need to promote smoke-free home policies through tobacco control programs.BioMed Research International 07/2014; 2014:249534. DOI:10.1155/2014/249534 · 2.71 Impact Factor