Advertisement

International Journal of Public Health

, Volume 64, Issue 3, pp 413–422 | Cite as

Analysis of non-compliance with smoke-free legislation in Russia

  • Liudmila ZasimovaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The study examined the smokers’ non-compliance rates in indoor public places in Russia and the sociodemographic factors associated with non-compliance.

Methods

Univariate analysis and logistic regression models were performed using cross-sectional data from a representative sample of Russian adults (N = 4006).

Results

27.2% of Russian smokers did not comply with smoke-free bans. Non-compliance was attributed to sociodemographic characteristics of smokers, mainly to the number of cigarettes smoked per day, regular alcohol consumption, being aged between 15 and 34 years, being in the highest income group and living in an urban area. Neither the sex, nor the family status of smokers exerted a statistically significant affiliation with non-compliance. Higher rates of non-compliance were observed in restaurants, cafes, bars and nightclubs, common domestic premises of apartment buildings and indoor workplaces. Violations on public transport, in governmental buildings, health and sport facilities, colleges and universities were less common.

Conclusions

There is a need to revise the methods of enforcement with respect to sociodemographic characteristics of smokers associated with non-compliance in public places where violations are widespread.

Keywords

Smoking Second-hand smoke Bans Non-compliance Smoke-free legislation Russia 

Notes

Funding

The data collection was sponsored by the National Research University Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE) in 2017. The remainder of the research was funded by NRU HSE Basic Research Program under Grant No. 33 (2018) “Consumer behavior on the markets of socially important goods and services”.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Human and animal right statement

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

38_2018_1198_MOESM1_ESM.doc (82 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 82 kb)

References

  1. Assessing compliance with smoke-free law. A “How-to” guide for conducting compliance studies. Second edition. (2014) International union against tuberculosis and lung disease, Campaign for tobacco free kids, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg school of public health. [cited 2 August 2018] https://www.theunion.org/what-we-do/publications/technical/english/compliance-guide_v4smallerfile.pdf
  2. Borland R, Yong HH, Siahpush M, Hyland A, Campbell S, Hastings G, Cummings KM, Fong GT (2006) Support for and reported compliance with smoke-free restaurants and bars by smokers in four countries: findings from the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tob Control 15:34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drope JM (2010) The politics of smoke-free policies in developing countries: lessons from Africa. CVD Prev Control 5(3):65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eadie D, Heim D, MacAskill S, Ross A, Hastings G, Davies J (2008) A qualitative analysis of compliance with smoke-free legislation in community bars in Scotland: implications for public health. Addiction 103:1019–1026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. FCTC (2003) WHO framework convention on tobacco control. World health organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  6. Federal Law №. 15-FZ (2013) On protecting the health of citizens from the effects of second hand tobacco smoke and the consequences of tobacco consumption. February 23Google Scholar
  7. Federal Law № 274 FZ (2013) On protecting population health from exposure to tobacco smoke and consequences of tobacco use. October 21Google Scholar
  8. Feldman EA, Bayer R (2011) The triumph and tragedy of tobacco control: a tale of nine nations. Ann Rev Law Sci 7:79–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Galan I, Diez-Ganan L, Mata N, Gandarillas A, Cantero JL, Durban M (2012) Individual and contextual factors associated to smoking on school premises. Nicotine Tob Res 14:495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao J, Zhao J (2018) Legitimacy versus morality: why do the Chinese obey the law? Law Hum Behav 42(2):167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. GBD Risk Factors Collaborators (2017) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 390(10100):1345–1422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gusenko M, Fomchenko T (2018) Kaliyany i veypy priravnyayut k obychnym sigaretam. Rossiskaya Gazeta published online 21.062018. https://rg.ru/2018/06/21/kaliany-i-vejpy-priravniaiut-k-obychnym-sigaretam.html
  13. Hoffman SJ, Tan C (2015) Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies. BMC Public Health 15:744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyland A, Barnoya J, Corral JE (2012) Smoke-free air policies: past, present and future. Tob Control 21:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jones MR, Barnova J, Stranges S et al (2014) Cardiovascular events following smoke-free legislations: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Environ Health Rep 1:239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kislitsyna O, Stickley A, Gilmore A, McKee M (2010) The social determinants of adolescent smoking in Russia in 2004. Int J Public Health 55(6):619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lajunen T, Summala H (2003) Can we trust self-reports of driving? Effects of impression management on driver behaviour questionnaire responses. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 6:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lazuras L, Zlatev M, Rodafinos A, Eiser JR (2012) Smokers’ compliance with smoke-free policies, and non-smokers’ assertiveness for smoke-free air in the workplace; a study from the Balkans. Int J Public Health 57(5):769–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lunze K, Migliorini L (2013) Tobacco control in the Russian Federation—a policy analysis. BMC Public Health 13:64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nagelhout GE, Mons U, Allwright S, Guignard R, Beck F, Fong GT, de Vries H, Willemsen MC (2011) Prevalence and predictors of smoking in “smoke-free” bars. Findings from the international tobacco control (ITC) Europe surveys. Soc Sci Med 72:1643–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Perkins R, Neumayer E (2014) Adoption and compliance in second-hand smoking bans: a global econometric analysis. Int J Public Health 59:859–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. GATS Russia (2016). Global Adult Tobacco Survey 2016. (http://www.who.int/tobacco/surveillance/survey/gats/rus/en/)
  23. Stickley A, Carlson P (2009) The social and economic determinants of smoking in Moscow, Russia. Scand J Public Health 37(6):632–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vardaki S, Yannis G (2013) Investigating the self-reported behavior of drivers and their attitudes to traffic violations. J Saf Res 46:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. WHO (2014). Global status report on alcohol and health 2014. (cited 2 August 2018). http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msb_gsr_2014_1.pdf?ua=1
  26. Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey—HSE (RLMS-HSE), conducted by National Research University “Higher School of Economics” and OOO “Demoscope” together with Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (RLMS-HSE web sites: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/rlms-hse, http://www.hse.ru/org/hse/rlms)
  27. Yagil D (1998) Instrumental and normative motives for compliance with traffic laws among young and older drivers. Accid Anal Prev 30:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zasimova L, Kossova E, Ryazanova M (2014) Understanding individual attitudes towards ban on smoking in public places. Appl Econom 34(2):95–119Google Scholar
  29. Zhou L, Niu L, Jiang H, Jiang C, Xiao S (2016) Facilitators and barriers of smokers’ compliance with smoking bans in public places: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economic SciencesNational Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE)MoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations