HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) erratum Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pickett, M. S Articles by Giovino, G. A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pickett, M. S Articles by Giovino, G. A Related Collections Environmental tobacco smoke

Smoke-free laws and secondhand smoke exposure in US non-smoking adults, 1999–2002

¹ Brookline, Massachusetts, USA
² Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland, USA
³ Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA

Correspondence to:
Debra J Brody
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 4215, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA; sschober{at}cdc.gov

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between smoke-free law coverage and secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in the United States non-smoking adult population.

Design: We used data from the 1999–2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a cross-sectional survey designed to monitor the health and nutritional status of the US population. Serum cotinine levels were available for 5866 non-smoking adults from 57 survey locations. Each location was categorised into one of three groups indicating extensive, limited, and no coverage by a smoke-free law.

Main outcome measures: The proportion of adults with SHS exposure, defined as having serum cotinine levels 0.05 ng/ml.

Results: Among non-smoking adults living in counties with extensive smoke-free law coverage, 12.5% were exposed to SHS, compared with 35.1% with limited coverage, and 45.9% with no law. Adjusting for confounders, men and women residing in counties with extensive coverage had 0.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.16) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.34) times the odds of SHS exposure compared to those residing in counties without a smoke-free law.

Conclusions: These results support the scientific evidence suggesting that smoke-free laws are an effective strategy for reducing SHS exposure.

Abbreviations: ANRF, American Nonsmoker’s Rights Foundation; LOD, limit of detection; MEC, mobile examination centre; MVU, masked variance unit; NCHS, National Center for Health Statistics; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey; SHS, secondhand smoke; PSU, primary sampling unit

Keywords: secondhand smoke; cotinine; NHANES, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Eriksen and F. Chaloupka The Economic Impact of Clean Indoor Air Laws CA Cancer J Clin, November 1, 2007; 57(6): 367 - 378. [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]

				P. C Akhtar, D. B Currie, C. E Currie, and S. J Haw Changes in child exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (CHETS) study after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland: national cross sectional survey BMJ, September 15, 2007; 335(7619): 545 - 545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J Haw and L. Gruer Changes in exposure of adult non-smokers to secondhand smoke after implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland: national cross sectional survey BMJ, September 15, 2007; 335(7619): 549 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]