Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking?

Evans, William N.; Farrelly, Matthew C.; Montgomery, Edward

doi:10.3386/w5567

Cited by 82 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, previous studies showed that CIALs have a negative impact on cigarette demand,23 smoking prevalence59 and smoking intensity,59 60 although one study found that more restrictive smoke-free air laws had little impact on smoking prevalence 60. The mixed results from our study could be due to the correlation between smoke-free air law coverage and the antismoking sentiment variable (Spearman’s correlation coefficients=0.37 for Asians (p<0.001) and 0.33 for African–Americans (p<0.001)).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Responsiveness to cigarette prices by different racial/ethnic groups of US adults

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of cigarette prices on adult smoking for four US racial/ethnic groups: whites, African–Americans, Asians and Hispanics.MethodsWe analysed pooled cross-sectional data from the 2006/2007 and 2010/2011 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (n=339 921 adults aged 18+) and cigarette price data from the Tax Burden on Tobacco. Using a two-part econometric model of cigarette demand that controlled for sociodemographic characteristics, state-level antismoking sentiment, local-level smoke-free air laws and monthly indicator, we estimated for each racial/ethnic group the price elasticities of smoking participation, smoking intensity and total demand for cigarettes.ResultsSmoking prevalence for whites, African–Americans, Asians and Hispanics during the study period was 18.3%, 16.1%, 8.2% and 11.3%, respectively. The price elasticity of smoking participation was statistically significant for whites, African–Americans, Asians and Hispanics at −0.26, –0.10, −0.42 and −0.11, respectively. The price elasticity of smoking intensity was statistically significant among whites (−0.22) and African–Americans (−0.17). Overall, the total price elasticity of cigarette demand was statistically significant for all racial/ethnic groups: 0.48 for whites, −0.27 for African–Americans, −0.22 for Asians and −0.15 for Hispanics.ConclusionsOur results suggest that raising cigarette prices, such as via tobacco tax increases, would result in reduced cigarette consumption for all racial/ethnic groups. The magnitude of the effect and the impact on cessation and reduced smoking intensity differ across these groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Responsiveness to cigarette prices by different racial/ethnic groups of US adults

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From a staff perspective, the move to tobacco-free grounds is similar to a workplace smoking ban, and such bans are shown to reduce workforce smoking. 34 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New York Policy on Smoking in Addiction Treatment: Findings After 1 Year

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives We assessed changes in smoking prevalence and other measures associated with the July 2008 New York Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services tobacco policy, which required that all publicly funded addiction treatment programs implement smoke-free grounds, have “no evidence” of smoking among staff, and make tobacco dependence treatment available for all clients. Methods In a random sample of 10 programs, staff and clients were surveyed before the policy and 1 year later. Measures included tobacco-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices used by counselors and received by clients. Results Client smoking decreased from 69.4% to 62.8% (P = .044). However, response to the policy differed by program type. Outpatient programs showed no significant changes on any of the staff and client survey measures. In methadone programs, staff use of tobacco-related practices increased (P < .01), client attitudes toward tobacco treatment grew more positive (P < .05), and clients received more tobacco-related services (P < .05). Residential clients were more likely to report having quit smoking after policy implementation (odds ratio = 4.7; 95% confidence interval = 1.53, 14.19), but they reported less favorable attitudes toward tobacco treatment (P < .001) and received fewer tobacco-related services from their program (P < .001) or their counselor (P < .001). Conclusions If supported by additional research, the New York policy may offer a model that addiction treatment systems can use to address smoking in a population where it has been prevalent and intractable. Additional intervention or policy supports may be needed in residential programs, which face greater challenges to implementing tobacco-free grounds.

show abstract

“…Both individual worksite and population based studies indicated that workplace restrictions implemented by private entities reduced prevalence rates by 10–20%, with most population based studies finding effects closer to 20% 4. Since only 63% of the adult population worked in 199329 and 67% of workers worked indoors,30 the effects would be applied to 42% (67% of 63%) of the adult population. Thus, the 10–20% reductions found in studies of workers would imply a 4–8% reduction for the overall adult smoking population.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%