Advertisement

International Journal of Public Health

, Volume 57, Issue 5, pp 769–775 | Cite as

Smokers’ compliance with smoke-free policies, and non-smokers’ assertiveness for smoke-free air in the workplace: a study from the Balkans

  • Lambros LazurasEmail author
  • Martin Zlatev
  • Angelos Rodafinos
  • J. Richard Eiser
Original Article

Abstract

Objective

Identify the psychosocial variables that predict smokers’ compliance with smoke-free policies at work, and non-smokers’ assertiveness for smoke-free rights in Greek and Bulgarian workplaces.

Methods

Data were collected from employees in Greece and Bulgaria. The main outcome measures were smokers’ compliance with smoke-free policies, and non-smokers’ assertiveness intentions. Demographic variables, tobacco use and dependence, as well as beliefs about second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure and smoking at work were also assessed.

Results

Regression analyses showed that smokers’ compliance with smoke-free policies was predicted by age, perceived health risks of smoking, and beliefs related to the benefits of smoking at work. Non-smokers’ assertiveness was predicted by annoyance from exposure to SHS at work, and assertiveness-related social cognitions (e.g., attitudes, social norms, and self-efficacy).

Conclusions

Interventions to promote support for tobacco control policies at work in Greece and Bulgaria may benefit from targeting smokers’ beliefs about the actual effects of tobacco use on health and job performance. Accordingly, efforts to promote non-smokers assertiveness should build stronger assertiveness-related attitudes, convey anti-smoking normative messages, and strengthen self-efficacy skills.

Keywords

Assertiveness Compliance Workplace smoking Greece Bulgaria SHS exposure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has received financial support from Cancer Research UK, Grant No: C3841/A8924.

References

  1. Aspropoulos E, Lazuras L, Rodafinos A, Eiser JR (2010) Can you please put it out? Predicting non-smokers’ assertiveness intentions at work. Tob Control 19:148–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnoya J, Glantz SA (2005) Cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke nearly as large as smoking. Circulation 1:2684–2698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baska T, Warren CC, Baskova M, Jones NR (2009) Prevalence of youth cigarette smoking and selected social factors in 25 European countries: findings from the Global Youth Tobacco SurveyGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogdanovica I, Godfrey F, McNeil A, Britton J (2011) Smoking prevalence in the European Union: a comparison of national and transnational prevalence survey methods and results. Tob Control 20:e4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA (2002) Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ 325:188–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Germain D, Wakefield M, Durkin S (2007) Non-smokers’ responses when smokers light up: a population-based study. Prev Med 45:21–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Halpern MT, Taylor H (2010) Employee and employer support for workplace-based smoking cessation: results from an international survey. J Occup Health 52:375–382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Rickert W, Robinson J (1989) Measuring the heaviness of smoking: using self-reported time to first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day. Br J Addiction 84:791–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heatherton TF, Kozlowski LT, Frecker RC, Fagerstrom KO (1991) The Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: a revision of the Fagerstrom tolerance questionnaire. Addiction 86:1119–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Joosens L, Raw M (2007) Progress in tobacco control in 30 European countries, 2005 to 2007. Paper presented at the Fourth European Conference on Tobacco or Health, Basel, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Lazuras L, Eiser JR, Rodafinos A (2009) Predicting smokers’ non-compliance with smoking restrictions in public places. Tob Control 18:127–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Poland BD, Cohen JE, Ashley MJ et al (2000) Heterogeneity among smokers and non-smokers in attitudes and behaviour regarding smoking and smoking restrictions. Tob Control 9:364–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Schumann A, John U, Thyrian JR, Ulbricht S, Hapke U, Meyer C (2006) Attitudes towards smoking policies and tobacco control measures in relation to smoking status and smoking behaviour. Eur J Public Health 16:513–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thrasher JF, Boado M, Sebrie E, Bianco E (2009) Smoke-free policies and the social acceptability of smoking in Uruguay and Mexico: findings from the international tobacco control policy evaluation project. Nicotine Tob Res 11:591–599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Webb TL, Sheeran P (2006) Does changing behavioural intentions engender behaviour change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull 132:249–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. West R (2006) Tobacco control: present and future. Br Med Bull 77(78):123–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Willemsen MC, De Vries H (1996) Saying “No” to environmental tobacco smoke: determinants of assertiveness among non-smoking employees. Prev Med 25:575–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lambros Lazuras
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin Zlatev
    • 1
  • Angelos Rodafinos
    • 2
  • J. Richard Eiser
    • 3
  1. 1.South-East European Research Centre (SEERC)ThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.City CollegeInternational Faculty of the University of SheffieldThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.University of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations