Changes in Self-Reported Smokefree Workplace Policy Coverage Among Employed Adults—United States, 2003 and 2010–2011

Babb, Stephen; Liu, Benmei; Kenemer, Brandon; Holmes, Carissa Baker; Hartman, Anne M.; Gibson, James T.; King, Brian A.

doi:10.1093/ntr/ntx202

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have found that smoke‐free policies are not equally applied in outdoor places or workplaces, which may contribute to disparities; for example, although 80% of US indoor workers were covered by a workplace smoke‐free policy, this proportion was lower among younger workers, males, Hispanics, and those with less education or income or who lived in the South . Enhancing equitable implementation of comprehensive smoke‐free strategies in all workplaces, public places, homes, and vehicles can reduce secondhand smoke exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part II: Progress toward Healthy People 2020 objectives for 4 common cancers

Henley

Thomas

Lewis

et al. 2020

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

selected objectives-including death rates, cancer screening, and major risk factors-related to 4 common cancers (lung, colorectal, female breast, and prostate). Baseline values, recent values, and the percentage change from baseline to recent values were examined overall and by select sociodemographic characteristics. Data from national surveillance systems were obtained from the Healthy People 2020 website. RESULTS: Targets for death rates were met overall and in most sociodemographic groups, but not among males, blacks, or individuals in rural areas, although these groups did experience larger decreases in rates compared with other groups. During 2007 through 2017, cancer death rates decreased 15% overall, ranging from −4% (rural) to −22% (metropolitan). Targets for breast and colorectal cancer screening were not yet met overall or in any sociodemographic groups except those with the highest educational attainment, whereas lung cancer screening was generally low (<10%). Targets were not yet met overall for cigarette smoking, recent smoking cessation, excessive alcohol use, or obesity but were met for secondhand smoke exposure and physical activity. Some sociodemographic groups did not meet targets or had less improvement than others toward reaching objectives. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring trends in cancer risk factors, screening test use, and mortality can help assess the progress made toward decreasing the cancer burden in the United States. Although many interventions to reduce cancer risk factors and promote healthy behaviors are proven to work, they may not be equitably applied or work well in every community. Implementing cancer prevention and control interventions that are sustainable, focused, and culturally appropriate may boost success in communities with the greatest need, ensuring that all Americans can access a path to long, healthy, cancer-free lives. Cancer 2020;126:2250-2266.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part II: Progress toward Healthy People 2020 objectives for 4 common cancers

Henley

Thomas

Lewis

et al. 2020

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…10,11 The number of indoor workers covered by a smoke-free policy increased from 69.3% in 1999 to 82.8% in 2010–2011; however, policy coverage varies across population groups. 12,13…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although previous studies have assessed smoke-free policies at workplaces, findings were limited to food service workers and major occupation groups. 12,13 Additionally, information on detailed industry- and occupation-specific smoke-free workplace policy and employer-sponsored cessation program coverage is limited. To fill these gaps, this study used data from the 2014–2015 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (TUS-CPS) to assess the extent of combustible tobacco use, as well as coverage of smoke-free policies and employer cessation programs, among employed U.S. adults, by industry and occupation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Workplace Smoke-Free Policies and Cessation Programs Among U.S. Working Adults

Syamlal

King

Mazurek

2019

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Workplace tobacco control interventions reduce smoking and secondhand smoke exposure among U.S. workers. Data on smoke-free workplace policy coverage and cessation programs by industry and occupation are limited. This study assessed smoke-free workplace policies and employer-offered cessation programs among U.S. workers, by industry and occupation. Methods: Data from the 2014–2015 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey, a random sample of the civilian, non-institutionalized population, were analyzed in 2018. Self-reported smoke-free policy coverage and employer-offered cessation programs were assessed among working adults aged ≥18 years, overall and by occupation and industry. Respondents were considered to have a 100% smoke-free policy if they indicated smoking was not permitted in any indoor areas of their workplace, and to have a cessation program if their employer offered any stop-smoking program within the past year. Results: Overall, 80.3% of indoor workers reported having smoke-free policies at their workplace and 27.2% had cessation programs. Smoke-free policy coverage was highest among workers in the education services (90.6%) industry and lowest among workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry (64.1%). Employer-offered cessation programs were significantly higher among workers reporting 100% smoke-free workplace policies (30.9%) than those with partial/no policies (23.3%) and were significantly higher among indoor workers (29.2%) than outdoor workers (15.0%). Conclusions: Among U.S. workers, 100% smoke-free policy and cessation program coverage varies by industry and occupation. Lower smoke-free policy coverage and higher tobacco use in certain industry and occupation groups suggests opportunities for workplace tobacco control interventions to reduce tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure.

show abstract

“…In other developed countries, the reported proportion of indoor workers covered by such policies has increased overall, such as among whitecollar and blue-collar workers, as well as service workers. 30 Even so, comprehensive smoke-free policies in very small workplaces are not very common 31 ; therefore, much stronger laws are needed to create working environments that are indeed smoke free.…”

Section: Influence Of Occupation On Smoking Prevalencementioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Occupational Background on Smoking Prevalence as a Health Inequality Among Employees of Medium- and Small-Sized Companies in Japan

Fujita

Babazono

Harano

et al. 2020

Population Health Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tobacco smoking is a major public health problem. In addition, the influence of socioeconomic status on health inequalities has received great attention worldwide. The authors used insurance data of beneficiaries employed in medium-and small-sized Japanese companies to investigate the influence of occupational background on smoking prevalence as a health inequality among workers in Japan. Participants were aged 35-74 years and underwent health examinations in 2015. Smoking prevalence was estimated for each occupational group according to sex, age, and income. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess the association between smoking status and occupational groups. A total of 385,945 participants were included. Overall smoking prevalence was 36.3%, higher than average in Japan. Smoking prevalence was lowest among workers in the education and learning support category; all other occupational groups had significantly high prevalence, with the highest for transport and postal services (odds ratio 2.69, 95% confidence interval 2.53-2.86). There were few differences in smoking prevalence at higher income levels among female participants, but differences were remarkably significant at lower income levels. For health inequalities related to smoking, occupational background was associated with smoking prevalence. In particular, there was high smoking prevalence in workplaces not covered by smoke-free policies. These results also demonstrated differences between the sexes; smoking prevalence among female workers with lower income levels was strongly associated with occupational background whereas there were no large differences among male workers by income. These findings suggest that the government should encourage companies to adopt smoke-free policies in the workplace.

show abstract

Changes in Self-Reported Smokefree Workplace Policy Coverage Among Employed Adults—United States, 2003 and 2010–2011

Cited by 10 publications

References 14 publications

Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part II: Progress toward Healthy People 2020 objectives for 4 common cancers

Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part II: Progress toward Healthy People 2020 objectives for 4 common cancers

Workplace Smoke-Free Policies and Cessation Programs Among U.S. Working Adults

Influence of Occupational Background on Smoking Prevalence as a Health Inequality Among Employees of Medium- and Small-Sized Companies in Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About