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

Abstract

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 20.1 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.

Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and health effects among hospitality workers in Sweden—before and after the implementation of a smoke-free law

“…Previous studies have mainly used indirect assessment methods of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, including subjective reports (9), particle sampling, or exhaled carbon monoxide (43). The sampling of cotinine from bodily fluids is a more direct measurement of environmental tobacco smoke, and it was also used (8,9). However, urinary cotinine is influenced by individual physiological (respiration, absorption, metabolism, and excretion), temporal (exposure duration), and physical (exposure concentration) parameters (27).…”

Tobacco smoke is a major source of indoor air pollution in Hungary's bars, restaurants and transportation venues

“…A cross-sectional study of 53 hospitality venues in 7 major cities across the USA showed 82% less indoor air pollution in the locations subject to smoke-free air laws, even though compliance with the laws was less than 100% [12]. In the months after New York State's smoke-free law took effect, hospitality workers experienced large decreases in cotinine, a biomarker for nicotine exposure, and were less likely to report adverse symptoms such as wheezing, cough, and shortness of breath [13]. Ten months after Scotland's smoke-free law took effect, admissions for acute coronary syndrome decreased by 17% compared to a 4% decrease in neighboring England, which did not have a smoke-free law in effect at the time [14].…”

Protecting the World From Secondhand Tobacco Smoke Exposure: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Go From Here?

“…Multiple studies have documented the positive short-term impact of smoke-free legislation in the improvement of self-reported sensory and respiratory symptoms as well as of lung function measures (Allwright et al, 2005;Ayres et al, 2009;Eagan, Hetland, & Aaro, 2006;Eisner, Smith, & Blanc, 1998;Farrelly et al, 2005;Lai et al, 2011;Larsson, Boethius, Axelsson, & Montgomery, 2008;Menzies et al, 2006;Pearson, Windsor, El-Mohandes, & Perry, 2009;Schoj et al, 2010;Skogstad et al, 2006;Wakefield, Cameron, Inglis, Letcher, & Durkin, 2005). On the contrary, incomplete bans do not improve workers' respiratory health (Fernandez et al, 2009).…”