The Short-Term Impact of National Smoke-Free Workplace Legislation on Passive Smoking and Tobacco Use

Heloma, Antero; Jaakkola, Maritta S.; Kähkönen, Erkki; Reijula, Kari

doi:10.2105/ajph.91.9.1416

Cited by 75 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaluations of the impact of these laws have consistently reported improvements in employee health. 5,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] In April 2006, the Washington, D.C., (DC) City Council approved an amendment to the Department of Health Functions Clarification Act of 2001, creating a smoke-free indoor air law. 21 On January 2, 2007, the indoor smoking ban was initiated in bars, restaurants, and pool halls.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Immediate Impact of the Washington, D.C., Smoke-Free Indoor Air Policy on Bar Employee Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SYNOPSISObjective. On January 2, 2007, the Washington, D.C., City Council banned smoking in restaurants and bars. We sought to determine the immediate impact of the ban on cotinine-confirmed environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) levels and respiratory symptom reports of a random sample of bar employees.Methods. We conducted an assessment of 66 employees from 41 randomly selected bars in December 2006, a month before the ban went into effect. After analyses of baseline data, 52 employees were eligible and 49 of them (94%) had a post-ban assessment in February 2007. Three participants were excluded due to high cotinine levels at the post-ban assessment, yielding a final sample size of 46 bar employees. ETS exposure levels were documented using saliva cotinine analyses by tandem liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry. Employee respiratory and sensory symptoms reports were assessed by a standardized, validated form: the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Bronchial Symptoms Questionnaire. Employee ETS exposure reports at work were eliminated after the ban.Results. Sensory symptoms reports (at #4 weeks) declined significantly by 70% to 100% (p50.0016); respiratory symptoms results were inconclusive due to a lack of data. Saliva cotinine medians declined significantly by 70% (p,0.0001), from a pre-ban mean of 2.11 nanograms per millileter (ng/mL) to a post-ban mean of 0.29 ng/mL, confirming reports of no ETS exposure at work. Conclusion.We concluded that the indoor air law was effective, eliminating employee ETS exposure reports, dramatically reducing their cotinine levels, and almost eliminating reports of sensory symptoms.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Immediate Impact of the Washington, D.C., Smoke-Free Indoor Air Policy on Bar Employee Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The impact of the 1995 law on exposure of employees was studied in nine large-or medium-sized workplaces in South Finland 1 yr [11] and 3 yrs [12] after the implementation of the new law and compared with the situation before the revised Act. Eight workplaces participated in the 4-yr follow-up.…”

Section: The Finnish Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The workplaces had varying degrees of voluntary smoking restrictions (but no total ban) at the baseline. Exposure assessment was based on questionnaire reports and measurements of air nicotine in the participating workplaces [11][12][13]. The air nicotine samples were collected in cafeterias and shared workrooms and, after the 1995 law, especially from corridors or workrooms near designated smoking areas.…”

Section: The Finnish Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Experience from different parts of the world with national, statewide or local smoke-free workplace legislation has shown that such legislation is feasible to implement and leads to significant decline in ETS exposure of employees in the short term [11,15,17,82] and long term [12,14] compared with situations where there is no or are some voluntary smoking restrictions. These reductions in ETS exposure have been accompanied by health benefits, including reduced respiratory symptoms and acute myocardial infarctions and increased lung function levels [15][16][17].…”

Section: Summary and Conclusion: Potential For Preventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of smoke-free workplace legislation on exposures and health: possibilities for prevention

Jaakkola

Jaakkola²

2006

European Respiratory Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aims of this study were to review experiences with national or statewide smokefree workplace legislation and data on the occurrence of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure at work, to present the best estimates for health effects related to workplace ETS exposure, and to calculate corresponding population attributable fractions (PAFs) for respiratory and cardiovascular diseases for 14 European countries and the USA.Systematic searches of the Medline database were carried out, with a cut-off date of November 2005. PAFs for the main outcomes were calculated from the best disease-specific effect estimates and country-specific prevalences of work ETS exposure.Significant numbers of workers are exposed to ETS at work, i.e. ,7.5 million workers in 15 European Union countries and 24.6 million in the USA. Workplace ETS exposure is causally linked to lung cancer and coronary heart disease, and is related to an increased risk of asthma in adults and reduced birthweight in newborns. Relatively strong evidence links ETS exposure to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and stroke. PAFs in Europe and the USA showed that, at current workplace ETS exposure prevalences, the public health impact is substantial.Experience of national and statewide smoke-free workplace legislation from different countries shows that such legislation leads to significant reductions in employees' environmental tobacco smoke exposure at work, as well as improvements in respiratory and cardiac health.

show abstract

“…We cannot forget about secondhand smoke. In a forthcoming issue, Heloma 20 will examine the short-term impact of national legislation to control exposure to secondhand smoke. Fears of chemical contamination were at the heart of the postEarth Day regulations.…”

Section: Implications For the Journalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Earth Day plus 30 years: public concern and support for environmental health

Greenberg

2001

Am J Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A clear majority of Americans are concerned about environmental threats to public health and do not want to weaken antipollution regulations. The strongest supporters for maintaining environmental regulations are affluent mainstream White suburban populations who are thriving economically, but support is also strong in every other major segment of the population. Overt attempts to weaken the basic regulations are unlikely, barring an obvious economic downturn that would cause a large proportion of the public to consider loosening standards in the belief that such changes would increase the number of available jobs. Given this context, environmental health was and will continue to be a core topic in the Journal. We will emphasize the nexus of environmental health and policy by publishing research, exemplary public health practice, and the views of key decision makers.

show abstract

The Short-Term Impact of National Smoke-Free Workplace Legislation on Passive Smoking and Tobacco Use

Abstract: Legislation was more efficient than voluntary workplace-specific smoking restrictions in reducing passive smoking and cigarette consumption.

Cited by 75 publications

References 9 publications

Evaluation of the Immediate Impact of the Washington, D.C., Smoke-Free Indoor Air Policy on Bar Employee Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure

Evaluation of the Immediate Impact of the Washington, D.C., Smoke-Free Indoor Air Policy on Bar Employee Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure

Impact of smoke-free workplace legislation on exposures and health: possibilities for prevention

Earth Day plus 30 years: public concern and support for environmental health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About