| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
RESEARCH PAPER |
1 RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
2 Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA
3 New York State Department of Health, City?, New York, USA
Correspondence to:
Dr Matthew C Farrelly
RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA; mcf{at}rti.org
Objective: To assess the impact on hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke of New York’s smoke-free law that prohibits smoking in all places of employment, including restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities.
Design: Pre-post longitudinal follow up design.
Settings: Restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities in New York State.
Subjects: At baseline, 104 non-smoking workers in restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities were recruited with newspaper ads, flyers, and radio announcements. Of these, 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen at baseline. At three, six, and 12 month follow up studies, 47, 38, and 32 workers from the baseline sample of 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen.
Intervention: The smoke-free law went into effect 24 July 2003.
Main outcome measures: Self reported sensory and respiratory symptoms and exposure to secondhand smoke; self administered saliva cotinine specimens. Analyses were limited to subjects in all four study periods who completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen.
Results: All analyses were limited to participants who completed both an interview and a saliva specimen for all waves of data collection (n = 30) and who had cotinine concentrations 
15 ng/ml (n = 24). Hours of exposure to secondhand smoke in hospitality jobs decreased from 12.1 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.3 hours) to 0.2 hours (95% CI –0.1 to 0.5 hours) (p < 0.01) and saliva cotinine concentration decreased from 3.6 ng/ml (95% CI 2.6 to 4.7 ng/ml) to 0.8 ng/ml (95% CI 0.4 to 1.2 ng/ml) (p < 0.01) from baseline to the 12 month follow up. The prevalence of workers reporting sensory symptoms declined from 88% (95% CI 66% to 96%) to 38% (95% CI 20% to 59%) (p < 0.01); there was no change in the overall prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms (p < 0.16).
Conclusion: New York’s smoke-free law had its intended effect of protecting hospitality workers from exposure to secondhand smoke within three months of implementation. One year after implementation, the results suggest continued compliance with the law.
Keywords: secondhand smoke; hospitality; ban; restriction
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S K Proescholdbell, K L Foley, J Johnson, and S H Malek Indoor air quality in prisons before and after implementation of a smoking ban law Tob. Control, April 1, 2008; 17(2): 123 - 127. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Reduced Secondhand Smoke Exposure After Implementation of a Comprehensive Statewide Smoking Ban New York, June 26, 2003 June 30, 2004 JAMA, September 26, 2007; 298(12): 1392 - 1394. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. J. Stark, K. Rohde, J. E. Maher, B. A. Pizacani, C. W. Dent, R. Bard, S. G. Carmella, A. R. Benoit, N. M. Thomson, and S. S. Hecht The Impact of Clean Indoor Air Exemptions and Preemption Policies on the Prevalence of a Tobacco-Specific Lung Carcinogen Among Nonsmoking Bar and Restaurant Workers Am J Public Health, August 1, 2007; 97(8): 1457 - 1463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Fernando, J. Fowles, A. Woodward, A. Christophersen, S. Dickson, M. Hosking, R. Berezowski, and R. A Lea Legislation reduces exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in New Zealand bars by about 90% Tob. Control, August 1, 2007; 16(4): 235 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Menzies, A. Nair, P. A. Williamson, S. Schembri, M. Z. H. Al-Khairalla, M. Barnes, T. C. Fardon, L. McFarlane, G. J. Magee, and B. J. Lipworth Respiratory symptoms, pulmonary function, and markers of inflammation among bar workers before and after a legislative ban on smoking in public places. JAMA, October 11, 2006; 296(14): 1742 - 1748. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Eisner Banning smoking in public places: time to clear the air. JAMA, October 11, 2006; 296(14): 1778 - 1779. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. S. Jaakkola and J. J. K. Jaakkola Impact of smoke-free workplace legislation on exposures and health: possibilities for prevention. Eur. Respir. J., August 1, 2006; 28(2): 397 - 408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S Pickett, S. E Schober, D. J Brody, L. R Curtin, and G. A Giovino Smoke-free laws and secondhand smoke exposure in US non-smoking adults, 1999-2002. Tob. Control, August 1, 2006; 15(4): 302 - 307. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. D. Eisner and F. Forastiere Passive smoking, lung function, and public health. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., June 1, 2006; 173(11): 1184 - 1185. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. K. Glantz and S. A. Glantz Protecting Europeans from secondhand smoke: time to act Eur. Heart J., February 2, 2006; 27(4): 382 - 383. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Gallus, P. Zuccaro, P. Colombo, G. Apolone, R. Pacifici, S. Garattini, and C. La Vecchia Effects of new smoking regulations in Italy Ann. Onc., February 1, 2006; 17(2): 346 - 347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Allwright, G. Paul, B. Greiner, B. J Mullally, L. Pursell, A. Kelly, B. Bonner, M. D'Eath, B. McConnell, J. P McLaughlin, et al. Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: before and after study BMJ, November 12, 2005; 331(7525): 1117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
