Effects of a restricted work-site smoking policy on employees who smoke.

Brigham, Janet; Gross, John M.; Stitzer, Maxine L.; Felch, Linda J.

doi:10.2105/ajph.84.5.773

Cited by 64 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One may argue that this is because California had a particular strong anti-smoking campaign. But other studies have reported similar results, showing an increased low-rate smoking rate in response to environmental restriction of smoking (Baile, Gibertini, Ulschak, Snow-Antle, & Hann, 1991;Brigham, Gross, Stitzer, & Felch, 1994;Burns, Shanks, Major, Gower, & Shopland, 2000;Conrad, Campbell, Edington, Faust, Vilnius, 1996; Hennrikus, Jeffrey, & Lando, 1996; Jeffrey et al, 1994;Petersen et al, 1988). It is difficult to ascertain if the original intention in reduction was to smoke fewer cigarettes to accommodate others or whether it was in preparation for complete cessation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 74%

A population study of low-rate smokers: Quitting history and instability over time.

Zhu¹,

Sun²,

Hawkins³

et al. 2003

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study used one longitudinal and two cross-sectional population surveys to compare stability of low-rate daily smokers (<5 CPD) with other daily smokers and occasional smokers. Most low-rate smokers do not maintain consumption level for long; 36% retained their smoking status after 20 months compared to 82% and 44% for regular daily and occasional smokers, respectively. Analysis revealed a dynamic process; established smokers of all consumption levels quit smoking as well as modified (decreased or increased) consumption level. Low-rate and occasional smokers quit at higher rates than regular daily smokers (odds ratios > 3:1), but were continuously replenished by new members, many "converted" from regular daily smokers. The overall trend is an increasing proportion of low-consumption smokers, even while smoking prevalence declines. The dynamic process described has implications for tobacco control efforts and for addiction theory.Key words: Low-rate smokers, chippers, occasional smokers, smoking reduction, cessation, dynamics of smoking behavior.Low-rate smokers 3 Low-rate smoke rs consume five or fewer cigarettes per day (CPD). Their low consumption behavior is of theoretical and practical interest. Theoretically, there is the question of how many of them will maintain such a low daily consumption , given that nicotine regulation is generally ineffective when people smoke 5 CPD or less (Benowitz, Jacob, Kozlowski, & Yu, 1986). More practical questions include: how many of these low-rate smokers used to smoke more but cut down their CPD in response to anti-smoking campaigns, and whether the reduced consumption increases the probability of cessation.Previous studies have shown that a subgroup of low-rate smokers maintains low consumption for an extended period of time. Shiffman called these smokers "chippers" and defined them as smokers who have maintained < 5 CPD for at least two years (Shiffman, 1989). He and his colleagues demonstrated that chippers do not exhibit characteristic features of nicotine dependence (Shiffman, Paty, Gyns, Kassel, & Elash, 1995), even though they absorb the same amount of nicotine per cigarette and show similar cardiovascular responses as dependent smokers (Shiffman, Fischer, Zettler-Seg al, & Benowitz, 1990;Shiffman et al., 1992). These studies, however, do not address the question of how many low-rate smokers in the general smoking population are chippers. Hence, the issue of how many low-rate smokers will maintain daily low consumption has not been resolved.With regard to the probability of cessation, a lower consumption generally predicts a higher cessation rate (USDHHS, 1988). However, this is not always true (Hughes, 2000). Smokers who cut down CPD to a certain level may not share the characteristics of smokers who have always consumed that same level, and nicotine intake is only one of many factors that affect cessation rate. In fact, consumption that is consistently as low as 5 CPD suggests that factors other than nicotine regulation must also play a significant ro...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 74%

A population study of low-rate smokers: Quitting history and instability over time.

Zhu¹,

Sun²,

Hawkins³

et al. 2003

Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the average effects on individuals' cigarette consumption summarized previously are relatively limited, the population impact can be significant. In a CESSATION Five studies in the best evidence subset for the Community Guide review measured differences or changes in self-reported cessation (5,21,32,43,51). The median change or difference in tobacco use cessation in smokers exposed to a workplace smoking ban compared to workers with no or lesser restrictions was a relative increase of 73% (range −3.2% to +272%).…”

Section: Effects On Adult Smoking Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Smoking Restrictions in the Workplace

Brownson

Hopkins

Wakefield

2002

Annu. Rev. Public Health

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key Words attitudes, behavior, public policy, tobacco smoke pollution s Abstract The health hazards caused by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) are well established. Workplace exposure to ETS is strongly influenced by the types of workplace and smoking policy-total bans on smoking have become common in many countries. Blue-collar and service workers are more likely than other types of workers to be exposed to ETS in the workplace. Smokers who are employed in workplaces with smoking bans are likely to consume fewer cigarettes per day, are more likely to be considering quitting, and quit at an increased rate compared with smokers employed in workplaces with no or weaker policies. Despite substantial progress in protecting workers from ETS, additional efforts are needed in areas that include attention to exposure among blue-collar and service workers; policies in workplaces with a limited number of employees; and studies of enforcement, effects on smoking cessation in multiple settings, and cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

“…We located 19 studies that addressed questions of whether smokers working in SFWs reduce their consumption or quit smoking. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] In this article, we summarize the findings ofthese studies and calculate a weighted mean daily (24-hour) workday reduction derived from the most methodologically robust study types-prospective cohort studies that compared pre-and postban smoking rates at worksites that had introduced prohibitions against smoking. We extrapolate this mean reduction to the indoor workforces of 2 countries (Australia and the United States), using the proportion of workplaces that are currently smoke-free and to a scenario in which all indoor workplaces are smoke-free.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of smoke-free workplaces on declining cigarette consumption in Australia and the United States.

Chapman¹,

Borland²,

Scollo³

et al. 1999

Am J Public Health

193

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: This study estimates the contribution of smoke-free workplaces to the recent national declines in cigarette consumption in Australia and the United States. METHODS: Nineteen studies of the impact of smoke-free workplaces on workday cigarette consumption were reviewed. The number and cost of cigarettes forgone were calculated and extrapolated to a scenario in which all indoor work areas were smoke-free. RESULTS: Of the 19 studies, 18 reported declines in daily smoking rates, and 17 reported declines in smoking prevalence. Smoke-free workplaces are currently responsible for an annual reduction of some 602 million cigarettes, or 1.8% of all cigarettes that might otherwise be consumed, in Australia, and an annual reduction of 9.7 billion cigarettes (2%) in the United States. Approximately 22.3% of the 2.7 billion decrease in cigarette consumption in Australia between 1988 and 1995 can be attributed to smoke-free workplaces, as can 12.7% of the 76.5 billion decrease in the United States between 1988 and 1994. CONCLUSIONS: If workplaces were universally smoke-free, the number of cigarettes forgone annually would increase to 1.14 billion (3.4%) in Australia and 20.9 billion (4.1%) in the United States.

show abstract

Effects of a restricted work-site smoking policy on employees who smoke.

Cited by 64 publications

References 14 publications

A population study of low-rate smokers: Quitting history and instability over time.

A population study of low-rate smokers: Quitting history and instability over time.

Effects of Smoking Restrictions in the Workplace

The impact of smoke-free workplaces on declining cigarette consumption in Australia and the United States.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About