Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Location Restrictions on Smoking: Assessing their Differential Impacts and Consequences in the Workplace

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Canadian Journal of Public Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To analyze existing evidence on the impact of two types of location restrictions on smoking: workplace bans and bans in hospitality settings, and to assess the extent to which they differentially affect subpopulations.

Methods

A review of international studies on location restrictions on smoking published between 1990–2007.

Results

Although workplace smoking bans reduce exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) at work, their effects on overall cigarette consumption and smoking prevalence may be uneven across the population. Bans in hospitality settings reduce SHS exposure among workers, but have potentially uneven effects based on the interactions between gender, socio-economic status (SES) and ethnicity. The unintended consequences of smoking bans are also more likely to be experienced by low SES groups.

Conclusions

Although location restrictions on smoking reduce SHS exposure and may serve to positively impact smoking behaviours, there is preliminary evidence that they may have a reduced impact on subpopulations such as low-income groups, although further research is needed.

Résumé

Objectifs

Analyser les données actuelles sur l’impact de restrictions relatives à l’usage du tabac dans deux types d’endroits: en milieu de travail et dans les bars et restaurants. Évaluer comment ces restrictions touchent différemment les sous-populations.

Méthode

Analyse d’études internationales publiées entre 1990 et 2007 sur les restrictions à l’usage du tabac dans les lieux publics.

Résultats

Bien que l’interdiction de fumer réduise l’exposition à la fumée secondaire au travail, les effets sur la consommation générale de cigarettes et sur la prévalence du tabagisme peuvent être inégaux dans la population. L’interdiction de fumer dans les bars et restaurants réduit l’exposition à la fumée secondaire chez le personnel, mais peut potentiellement avoir des effets inégaux selon les interactions entre le sexe, le statut socio-économique et l’origine ethnique. Les conséquences imprévues des interdictions de fumer auront tendance à être ressenties davantage par les personnes de statut socio-économique faible.

Conclusions

Les restrictions à l’usage du tabac dans certains lieux réduisent l’exposition à la fumée secondaire et peuvent avoir des effets positifs sur l’usage du tabac, mais les données préliminaires démontrent qu’elles peuvent avoir moins d’impact dans des sous-populations telles que les groupes à faible revenu; il faudrait toutefois pousser la recherche en ce sens.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, adopted 16 June 2003, entered into force 27 February 2005. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.who.int/tobacco/framework/en (Accessed January 30, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Department of Health. Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment — Smokefree Aspects of the Health Bill London, UK: Department of Health, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, the MPOWER Package. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moher M, Hey K, Lancaster T. Workplace interventions for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005; 2. Art. No.: CD003440.pub2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behavior: Systematic review. BMJ 2002;325:188–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bayer R, Stuber J. Tobacco control, stigma, and public health: Rethinking the relations. Am J Public Health 2006;96(1):47–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kunst A, Giskes K, Mackenbach J. Socio-economic Inequalities in Smoking in the European Union: Applying an Equity Lens to Tobacco Control Policies. EU Network on Interventions to Reduce Socio-economic Inequalities in Health. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Department of Public Health, 2004. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.ensp.org/files/socio.pdf (Accessed January 30, 2008 ).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mao Y, Hu J, Ugnat AM, Semenciw R, Fincham S. Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group. Socioeconomic status and lung cancer risk in Canada. Int J Epidemiol 2001;30(4):809–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Graham H, Der G. Patterns and predictors of tobacco consumption among women. Health Educ Res 1999;14:611–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jarvis M, Wardle J. Social patterning of individual health behaviours: The case of smoking. In: Marmot M, Wilkinson J (Eds.), The Social Determinants of Health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Killoran A, Owen L, Bauld L. Smoking cessation: An evidence-based approach to tackling health inequalities? In: Killoran A, Swann C, Kelly M, Ellis S, Kanaris A, Morgan A, et al. (Eds.), Public Health Evidence: Tackling Health Inequalities. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Greaves L. Gender and Tobacco Control: A Policy Brief. Geneva: World Health Organization/IDRC, 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Greaves L, Jategaonkar N. Tobacco policies and vulnerable girls and women: Toward a framework for gender sensitive policy development. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60(Suppl 2):ii57–ii65.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Poland B, Frohlich K, Haines RJ, Mykhalovskiy E, Rock M, Sparks R. The social context of smoking: The next frontier in tobacco control? Tobacco Control 2006;15:59–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Greaves L, Johnson J, Bottorff J, Kirkland S, Jategaonkar N, McGowan M, et al. What are the effects of tobacco policies on vulnerable populations? A better practices review. Can J Public Health 2006;97(4):310–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Balbach ED, Herzberg A, Barbeau EM. Political coalitions and working women: How the tobacco industry built a relationship with the Coalition of Labor Union Women. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60(Suppl 2):ii27–ii32.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Graham H, Inskip HM, Francis B, Harman J. Pathways of disadvantage and smoking careers: Evidence and policy implications. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60(Suppl 2):ii7–ii12.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Moskowitz JM, Lin Z, Hudes ES. The impact of workplace smoking ordinances in California on smoking cessation. Am J Public Health 2000;90:757–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Owen N, Borland R. Delayed compensatory cigarette consumption after a workplace smoking ban. Tobacco Control 1997;6:131–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Heloma A, Jaakkola MS. Four-year follow-up of smoke exposure, attitudes and smoking behaviour following enactment of Finland’s national smoke-free work-place law. Addiction 2003;98:1111–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Farrelly MC, Evans WN, Sfekas AE. The impact of workplace smoking bans: Results from a national survey. Tobacco Control 1999;8:272–77.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kinne S, Kristal AR, White E, Hunt J. Work-site smoking policies: Their population impact in Washington State. Am J Public Health 1993;83(7):1031–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gritz ER, Thompson B, Emmons K, Ockene JK, McLerran DF, Nielsen IR. Gender differences among smokers and quitters in the Working Well Trial. Prev Med 1998;27:553–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Levy DT, Mumford EA, Compton C. Tobacco control policies and smoking in a population of low education women, 1992–2002. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:ii20–ii26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Allwright S, Paul G, Greiner B, Mullally BJ, Pursell L, Kelly A, et al. Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: Before and after study. BMJ 2005;331:1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mulcahy M, Evans D, Hammond S, Repace JL, Byrne M. Secondhand smoke exposure and risk following the Irish smoking ban: An assessment of salivary cotinine concentrations in hotel workers and air nicotine levels in bars. Tobacco Control 2005;14:384–88.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Fong GT, Hyland A, Borland R, Hammond D, Hastings G, McNeill A, et al. Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: Findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15:51–58.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Moore RS, Lee JP, Antin TMJ, Martin SE. Tobacco free workplace policies and low socioeconomic status female bartenders in San Francisco. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:ii51–ii56.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee JP, Moore RS, Martin SE. Unobtrusive observations of smoking in urban California bars. J Drug Issues 2003;33:983–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Parry O, Platt S, Thomson C. Out of sight, out of mind: Workplace smoking bans and the relocation of smoking at work. Health Promot Int 2000;15:125–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Baile WF, Gibertini M, Ulschak F, Snow-Antle S, Hann D. Impact of a hospital smoking ban: Changes in tobacco use and employee attitudes. Addict Behav 1991;16:419–26.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wakefield MA, Wilson D, Owen N, Esterman A, Roberts L. Workplace smoking restrictions, occupational status, and reduced cigarette consumption. J Occup Med 1992;34:693–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Chapman S, Haddad S, Sindhusake D. Do work-place smoking bans cause smokers to smoke “harder”? Results from a naturalistic observational study. Addiction 1997;92:607–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Adda J, Cornaglia F. The Effects of Taxes and Bans on Passive Smoking (Rep. No. Discussion paper No. 509). The Australian National University Centre for Economic Policy Research, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Greaves L, Vallone D, Velicer W. Special effects: Tobacco policies and low socioeconomic status girls and women. J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:ii1–ii2.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Kirsten Bell PhD

  2. British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, Vancouver, BC, Canada

    Kirsten Bell PhD, Lucy McCullough BSc, Karen Devries BSc, Natasha Jategaonkar MSc, Lorraine Greaves PhD & Lindsay Richardson MA

  3. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Lucy McCullough BSc

  4. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Karen Devries BSc

  5. Framework Convention Alliance, Canada

    Natasha Jategaonkar MSc

Authors
  1. Kirsten Bell PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucy McCullough BSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Karen Devries BSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natasha Jategaonkar MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lorraine Greaves PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lindsay Richardson MA
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kirsten Bell PhD.

Additional information

Acknowledgements: This article is based on a rapid review of workplace policies for smoking cessation that the British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health (BCCEWH) completed for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom, who funded the project. The activities of the BCCEWH are made possible through a financial contribution from Health Canada. However, the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of NICE or Health Canada.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bell, K., McCullough, L., Devries, K. et al. Location Restrictions on Smoking: Assessing their Differential Impacts and Consequences in the Workplace. Can J Public Health 100, 46–50 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405492

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03405492

Key words

Mots clés

Search

Navigation