Elsevier

Preventive Medicine

Volume 55, Issue 5, November 2012, Pages 475-481
Preventive Medicine

Implementation and impact of anti-smoking interventions in three prisons in the absence of appropriate legislation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.08.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To assess the acceptability and impact of anti-smoking policies in three prisons in Switzerland.

Methods

A before–after intervention study in A) an open prison for sentenced prisoners, B) a closed prison for sentenced prisoners, and C) a prison for pretrial detainees. Prisoners and staff were surveyed before (2009, n = 417) and after (2010–2011, n = 228) the interventions. Medical staff were trained to address tobacco dependence systematically in prisoners. In prison A, a partial smoking ban was extended. No additional protection against second-hand smoke was feasible in prisons B and C.

Results

In prison A, more prisoners reported receiving medical help to quit smoking in 2011 (20%) than in 2009 (4%, p = 0.012). In prison A, prisoners and staff reported less exposure to second-hand smoke in 2011 than in 2009: 31% of prisoners were exposed to smoke at workplaces in 2009 vs 8% in 2011 (p = 0.001); in common rooms: 43% vs 8%, (p < 0.001). No changes were observed in prisons B and C.

Conclusions

Reinforcement of non-smoking rules was possible in only one of the three prisons but had an impact on exposure to tobacco smoke and medical help to quit. Implementing anti-smoking policies in prisons is difficult in the absence of appropriate legislation.

Highlights

► In Europe in general, prisoners are not adequately protected against SHS. ► An extension of a smoking ban was feasible in only one of 3 prisons in this study. ► It decreased exposure to SHS and did not cause any serious discipline problems. ► Cohabitation between smokers and non-smokers remained difficult. ► In the absence of legal changes, ad hoc, local policy changes are insufficient.

Introduction

Smoking prevalence is much higher in prisoners than in the general population (Butler et al., 2007, Papadodima et al., 2009, Proescholdbell et al., 2008, Sieminska et al., 2006), particularly because many prisoners are affected by conditions that are correlated with smoking (substance abuse, psychiatric disorders, poor socio-economic background (Butler et al., 2006, Etter et al., 2004). The high smoking prevalence in prisons results in exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS), a recognized carcinogen (Boffetta et al., 1998). Concentrations of SHS may be very high in prison cells (Hammond and Emmons, 2005, Proescholdbell et al., 2008, Ritter et al., 2011) and overcrowding increases this problem, as it results in higher concentrations of smoke. In addition, because of the wide availability of tobacco and the social pressure to smoke in prisons, some non-smoking inmates may start to smoke or relapse to smoking (Belcher et al., 2006, Cropsey et al., 2008, Papadodima et al., 2009).

Smoking bans have been implemented in prisons for several reasons, including health effects, concerns about exposure to SHS, reduction of health care expenditure on prisoners, maintenance and cleaning costs, risk of fires, lower insurance rates, or fear of litigation (Eldridge and Cropsey, 2009, Falkin et al., 1998, Kauffman et al., 2008, Patrick and Marsh, 2001, Vaughn and Del Carmen, 1993). Smoking bans may also elicit smoking cessation among inmates (Cropsey and Kristeller, 2005), although only a minority of prisoners appear to remain abstinent following release from prison (Lincoln et al., 2009, Thibodeau et al., 2010).

By 2007, 87% of U.S. prisons had indoor smoking bans and 60% also banned smoking outdoors (Hammond and Emmons, 2005, Kauffman et al., 2008, Proescholdbell et al., 2008). In Europe, in contrast, even though smoking bans have been implemented in public places, workplaces and hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals (Etter et al., 2008), there are at best partial smoking bans in most prisons and very few prisons, if any, are totally smoke-free (Ritter et al., 2012), particularly because prison cells are considered private places and a right to smoke in privacy has been upheld (Swiss_Confederation, 2010). Reluctance to implement smoking bans in prisons may result from concerns about discipline problems. However, smoking bans in prisons have been relatively well accepted by prisoners and staff and have caused fewer disturbances than expected (Carpenter et al., 2001, Hammond and Emmons, 2005, Lawrence and Welfare, 2008, Skolnick, 1990).

The aims of this study were to assess the situation in three prisons, in order to implement anti-smoking interventions, and to assess the acceptability and impact of these interventions.

Section snippets

Settings

Switzerland has a relatively low prison population rate (81 per 100,000), in international comparison (USA: 714; UK: 142; Australia: 117) (Walmsley, 2007). The study was conducted in three prisons in Switzerland, two in Geneva and one in Berne. The first (prison A) houses 120 male sentenced prisoners in individual cells and has 120 staff members. Most prisoners benefit from an open regime and work outdoors in agriculture or in indoor workshops, and they have freedom of movement within the

Participants

In 2009, 417 participants (prisoners plus staff) responded and 228 in 2011 (Table 1). In prisons A and B, participation rates among prisoners (40-50%) were not significantly different in 2009 and 2011, whereas in prison C participation rates in prisoners were higher in 2009 (23%) than in 2011 (17%, p = 0.01). Staff participation rates in prisons A and B were 40-77%, with no significant change between 2009 and 2011 (Table 1).

In prison A, most prisoners were Swiss citizens and most foreigners had a

Discussion

The originality of this study lies in its comparison of smoking policies in three prisons: an open prison for sentenced prisoners, a closed prison for sentenced prisoners and an overcrowded prison for pretrial detainees. Before the interventions, the rules about smoking differed substantially across these prisons. Interventions that were deemed feasible and were implemented also differed across prisons, ranging from almost no additional action against SHS in prisons B and C to a partial smoking

Conclusions

Partial smoking bans were feasible but were loosely enforced, and medical advice to quit smoking was not implemented systematically. The partial smoking bans did not result in serious discipline problems, but cohabitation of smokers and non-smokers was difficult, conflicts about smoking were frequent, and most prisoners said they should be better protected against SHS. Thus, there is great need for improvement, but this study shows how difficult it is to protect prisoners and staff against SHS,

Conflict of interest

HW and AE are in charge of the medical services at the two prisons in Geneva included in this study. No other competing interests.

Funding

Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (Tobacco Prevention Fund). The funding source did not have any role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; nor in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the directors of the prisons in the cantons of Berne and Geneva, Switzerland, for their cooperation.

References (32)

  • M.J. Carpenter et al.

    Smoking in correctional facilities: a survey of employees

    Tob. Control.

    (2001)
  • K. Cropsey et al.

    Smoking cessation intervention for female prisoners: addressing an urgent public health need

    Am. J. Public Health

    (2008)
  • B.S. Elger

    Towards equivalent health care of prisoners: European soft law and public health policy in Geneva

    J. Public Health Policy

    (2008)
  • M. Etter et al.

    Stages of change in smokers with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and in the general population

    Schizophr. Bull.

    (2004)
  • G.P. Falkin et al.

    Cigarette smoking policies in American jails

    Am. Jails

    (1998)
  • S.K. Hammond et al.

    Inmate exposure to secondhand smoke in correctional facilities and the impact of smoking restrictions

    J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol.

    (2005)
  • Cited by (16)

    • Attitudes of detainees and prison staff towards tobacco control policy in Switzerland: A qualitative interview study

      2014, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Furthermore, total bans have been reported to favour the surge of illicit markets and contraband of cigarettes, and to have limited effects on the long term cessation rates, as the great majority of detainees starts smoking again upon release [10–12]. Partial bans maintain the individual decision of a behavioural change such as tobacco use cessation [2], and at the same time create an environment that can promote the reduction of the daily consumption of cigarettes [4,5,13]. The Universities of Geneva and Bern conducted an action-research project to document tobacco use and regulation in three prisons in Switzerland, by using mixed method (quantitative and qualitative assessments, and air quality measurements).

    • Second-hand tobacco smoke in prison: Tackling a public health matter through research

      2013, Public Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      On a longer-term basis, more smokers would be expected to quit as tobacco has become a matter of discussion, and consciousness and awareness within the setting has increased.22 Most detainees participating in the interviews were smokers, as shown by further quantitative findings of the study.23 It is known from other studies that participants expect to be informed about the results, which is considered good practice in research,24–26 and this wish was also expressed here.

    • Primary Health Services in Prisons

      2022, Community and Physician
    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Declaration of interests: HW and AE are in charge of the medical services at the two prisons in Geneva included in this study. No other competing interests.

    View full text