Tobacco Control

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER
[Advanced]

Tobacco Control 2005;14:236-241; doi:10.1136/tc.2004.008839
Copyright © 2005 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Farrelly, M C
Right arrow Articles by Bauer, U E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Farrelly, M C
Right arrow Articles by Bauer, U E
Related Collections
Right arrow Smoking
Right arrow Environmental tobacco smoke

RESEARCH PAPER

Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law

M C Farrelly1, J M Nonnemaker1, R Chou1, A Hyland2, K K Peterson1, U E Bauer3

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:


Home page
Tobacco ControlHome page
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]


Home page
JAMAHome page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Public HealthHome page
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]


Home page
Tobacco ControlHome page
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]


Home page
JAMAHome page
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]


Home page
JAMAHome page
M. D. Eisner
Banning smoking in public places: time to clear the air.
JAMA, October 11, 2006; 296(14): 1778 - 1779.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Eur Respir JHome page
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]


Home page
Tobacco ControlHome page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med.Home page
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]


Home page
Eur Heart JHome page
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]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
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]


Home page
BMJHome page
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
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2005 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.