Greater gains from smoke-free legislation for non-smoking bar staff in Belfast

Bannon, Finian; Devlin, Anne Marie; McElwee, Gerry; Gavin, Anna

doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckp087

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In comparison with partial SFL comprehensive SFL appears to produce the greater decline. Six studies reported post-ban decreases in comprehensive SFL for the outcomes breathlessness (range 6.2 to 25%) [ 32 , 40 , 67 , 76 ] and tightness in chest (10% of decrease)[ 67 ], however, along with wheezing (five papers with significant decreases[ 32 , 39 , 40 , 55 , 76 ] and five with non significant decreases[ 41 , 43 , 44 , 67 , 73 ]) and asthma[ 58 ], findings did not indicate a clear decline in these symptoms.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smokefree legislation effects on respiratory and sensory disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to synthesize the available evidence in scientific papers of smokefree legislation effects on respiratory diseases and sensory and respiratory symptoms (cough, phlegm, red eyes, runny nose) among all populations.Materials and methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. A search between January 1995 and February 2015 was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Inclusion criteria were: 1) original scientific studies about smokefree legislation, 2) Data before and after legislation were collected, and 3) Impact on respiratory and sensory outcomes were assessed. Paired reviewers independently carried out the screening of titles and abstracts, data extraction from full-text articles, and methodological quality assessment.ResultsA total number of 1606 papers were identified. 50 papers were selected, 26 were related to symptoms (23 concerned workers). Most outcomes presented significant decreases in the percentage of people suffering from them, especially in locations with comprehensive measures and during the immediate post-ban period (within the first six months). Four (50%) of the papers concerning pulmonary function reported some significant improvement in expiratory parameters. Significant decreases were described in 13 of the 17 papers evaluating asthma hospital admissions, and there were fewer significant reductions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease admissions (range 1–36%) than for asthma (5–31%). Six studies regarding different respiratory diseases showed discrepant results, and four papers about mortality reported significant declines in subgroups. Low bias risk was present in 23 (46%) of the studies.ConclusionsSmokefree legislation appears to improve respiratory and sensory symptoms at short term in workers (the overall effect being greater in comprehensive smokefree legislation in sensory symptoms) and, to a lesser degree, rates of hospitalization for asthma.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smokefree legislation effects on respiratory and sensory disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Korean bars that permit smoking may expose patrons and staff to more secondhand smoke (Connolly et al, 2009; Nebot et al, 2009) and may encourage smoking because patrons may feel socially obligated to smoke (Kim et al, 2005). Implementation of smoke-free legislation has shown improvement in self-reported health outcomes among bar staff (Bannon et al, 2009; Hahn et al, 2007; Schoj et al, 2010)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Compliance with Smoke-Free Policies in Korean Bars and Restaurants in California: a Descriptive Analysis

Irvin

Hofstetter²,

Nichols³

et al. 2015

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The FCTC and its implementation guidelines have clearly established that only smoke-free legislations that eliminate tobacco smoke in all public places can protect all people, including workers, from exposure to tobacco smoke 8. Comprehensive smoke-free legislation protects non-smokers from the health consequences of secondhand smoke 23. Short-term benefits of smoke-free legislations include important reductions in hospital admissions for acute coronary events and improvements in respiratory health 24–29…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondhand tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants in Santiago, Chile: evaluation of partial smoking ban legislation in public places

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo compare air nicotine concentrations according to the smoking policy selected by bars/restaurants in Santiago, Chile before and after the enactment of partial smoking ban legislation in 2007 (establishments could be smoke free, have segregated (mixed) smoking and non-smoking areas, or allow smoking in all areas).MethodsThe study measured air nicotine concentrations over 7 days to characterise secondhand smoke exposure in 30 bars/restaurants in 2008. Owner/manager interviews and physical inspections were conducted.ResultsMedian IQR air nicotine concentrations measured in all venues were 4.38 (0.61–13.62) μg/m3. Air nicotine concentrations were higher in bars (median 7.22, IQR 2.48–15.64 μg/m3) compared to restaurants (1.12, 0.15–9.22 μg/m3). By smoking status, nicotine concentrations were higher in smoking venues (13.46, 5.31–16.87 μg/m3), followed by smoking areas in mixed venues (9.22, 5.09–14.90 μg/m3) and non-smoking areas in mixed venues (0.99, 0.19–1.27 μg/m3). Air nicotine concentrations were markedly lower in smoke-free venues (0.12, 0.11–0.46 μg/m3). After adjustment for differences in volume and ventilation, air nicotine concentrations were 3.2, 35.5 and 56.2 times higher in non-smoking areas in mixed venues, smoking areas in mixed venues and smoking venues, respectively, compared to smoke-free venues.ConclusionsExposure to secondhand smoke remains high in bars and restaurants in Santiago, Chile. These findings demonstrate that the partial smoking ban legislation enacted in Chile in 2007 provides no protection to employees working in those venues. Enacting a comprehensive smoke-free legislation which protects all people from exposure to secondhand smoke in all public places and workplaces is urgently needed.

show abstract

Greater gains from smoke-free legislation for non-smoking bar staff in Belfast

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Smokefree legislation effects on respiratory and sensory disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Smokefree legislation effects on respiratory and sensory disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Compliance with Smoke-Free Policies in Korean Bars and Restaurants in California: a Descriptive Analysis

Secondhand tobacco smoke in bars and restaurants in Santiago, Chile: evaluation of partial smoking ban legislation in public places

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About