4.6 Article

Understanding the needs of smokers who work as routine and manual workers on building sites: Results from a qualitative study on workplace smoking cessation

Journal

PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 127, Issue 2, Pages 125-133

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.10.002

Keywords

Smoking cessation; Routine and manual; Health promotion; Public health; Qualitative research

Funding

  1. NHS Tower Hamlets

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The number of adults who smoke is decreasing, yet this decreasing trend is not spread evenly across the population, with the greatest number of smokers in the routine/manual worker (R/M) population. This study aimed to gain insight into the beliefs, behaviours and cessation needs of R/M smokers working on construction sites to inform the potential development of a work-based smoking cessation service. Study design: A qualitative study in a work-based setting in the UK. Methods: Semi-structured focus group discussions and individual interviews (n = 23) with R/M employees on two development sites in London and seven employers. Data were analysed using a framework approach. Results: Key motivations for smoking continuance within this group were evident: physical effects, habit and routine, opportunity and social factors. Employees were knowledgeable about the negative health impacts of smoking, but showed limited awareness of smoking cessation services and aids available. Intentions to give up smoking were common, with favourable attitudes towards the development of a work-based smoking cessation service. Conclusion: The milieu of construction sites means that tailored approaches to work-based smoking cessation programmes are needed to maximize potential benefits for both employees and employers. Reconsideration of current Smokefree legislation as it applies to the construction industry is also required. (C) 2012 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available