Self-reported secondhand smoke exposure following the adoption of a national smoke-free policy in Poland: analysis of serial, cross-sectional, representative surveys, 2009–2019

Abstract

ObjectiveWe assessed changes in secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in workplaces and public venues in Poland over a 9-year period following the adoption of a smoke-free policy in Poland in 2010.DesignSix waves of cross-sectional surveys were carried out between 2009 and 2019.ParticipantsA nationally representative sample of adult Polish residents (age 15 years and older) was surveyed.Survey respondents self-reported SHS exposure in the workplace and 12 different public venues. Data were analysed separately for samples consisting of (1) all respondents and (2) non-smokers only.SHS exposure was defined based on self-report, which may invoke error such as demand bias or recall bias and study protocol do not include participation of paediatric populations that are key limitations of this study.ResultsWithin a year of adopting the smoke-free policy in 2010, the proportion of non-smokers exposed to SHS in Polish workplaces decreased by more than half (from 19.2% in 2009 to 9.5% in 2011). Over 10 years, a substantial reduction in SHS exposure was observed in all public venues. The highest decrease in SHS exposure was observed in transport services (decreased from 45.7% to 11.7% among all respondents and from 44.2% to 11.7% among non-smokers) and in bars/pubs (SHS exposure decreased from 45.0% to 7.0% among all respondents and from 39.4% to 7.0% among non-smokers).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the substantial success of a national smoke-free law. Nevertheless, smoke-free laws must continue to be refined in terms of their legal boundaries as well as implementation strategies to eliminate disparities in SHS exposure in certain types of venues.

Age–sex differences in the global burden of lower respiratory infections and risk factors, 1990–2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

“…Individuals aged 70 years and older, on the other hand, had the highest incidence rate per 100 000 population of all age groups: 25 786•6 (23 182•5-28 975•4) for males and 19 819•9 (17 921•3-22 072•6) for females. Of all super regions, South Asia had the highest incidence rate per 100 000 population among both males aged 70 years and older (48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)) and females aged 70 years and older (38 852•6 [34 264•3-44 606•1]; appendix 2 pp 34-37).…”

“…51,52 Secondhand smoke exposure data might also be prone to recall bias. 53 Biomarkerbased exposure assessment such as cotinine could help improve the accuracy of smoking and second hand smoke data. 52,53 Although our results represent the LRI burden before the COVID19 pandemic, the effect of the pandemic on LRIs needs to be investigated further.…”

“…53 Biomarkerbased exposure assessment such as cotinine could help improve the accuracy of smoking and second hand smoke data. 52,53 Although our results represent the LRI burden before the COVID19 pandemic, the effect of the pandemic on LRIs needs to be investigated further. The pandemic was linked to a reduction of influenza and respiratory syncytial virus infections, probably as a result of mitigation measures, including mask wearing and social distancing.…”

The prevalence of cigarette, e-cigarette and heated tobacco use among police employees in Poland: a 2020 cross-sectional survey

“…In Poland, the number of companies introducing a smoking ban in the workplace is steadily increasing [27]. In 2009-2019, the proportion of Poles exposed to environmental tobacco smoke decreased from 25.4% to 6.7% [28]. However, further anti-tobacco activities are needed to promote smoke-free workplaces.…”

Public support for car smoking bans in Poland: a 2022 national cross-sectional survey

“…Poland is an example of a former communist country in Central and Eastern Europe, that passes the first smoke-free law. 17 18 In 1995, ban on smoking in healthcare facilities, schools and other educational facilities as well as enclosed workplaces and several public places was implemented. 17 18 The implementation of smoke-free law was supported by a coalition of experts (including doctors, public health specialists and scientific societies), efforts to build political consensus as well as public debate on tobacco use and media anti-tobacco campaigns (eg, ‘Let’s Stop Smoking Together’).…”