Background: While clean indoor air (CIA) policies are intended to reduce exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace, restrictions in public workplaces have the potential to discourage youth smoking. There is growing evidence from cross-sectional and ecological studies, but limited evidence from longitudinal studies that this is so.
Objective: To evaluate the association between local CIA policies and smoking behaviours among Minnesota youth over time.
Design, setting and subjects: A cohort of 4233 Minnesota youths, ages 11 to 16 at baseline, was interviewed via telephone for 6 years (2000–2006). Individual, family and community level variables were collected from participants every 6 months. A generalised estimating equation (GEE) logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between CIA policies and past-month smoking in youth over time. The analysis was controlled for potential confounders at individual and community levels.
Results: There was not significant association between CIA policies and youth smoking behaviours in the multivariate analyses. At the individual level, parental smoking significantly increased the odds of smoking nearly 40% and close friend smoking increased the odds of past-month smoking by nearly 100% for each close friend. Banning smoking in the home was significantly associated with a 12% reduction in the odds of past-month smoking.
Conclusion: After accounting for other community and individual level factors known to be associated with youth smoking, there was no significant association between CIA policies and past-month smoking for youth over time.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Competing interests: None.
Funding: This work was supported by grants CA86191 from the National Institutes of Health and RC 2006-0047 from ClearWay Minnesota. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of ClearWay Minnesota.
Ethics approval: The University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board approved this study.