4.5 Article

Recent trends in home and work smoking bans

期刊

TOBACCO CONTROL
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 258-263

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/tc.2003.006056

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Home and work smoking bans at the national and state level in the USA, and their relation to smoking prevalence and to tobacco control policies, are examined. Data: The Current Population Survey's 1992/93 and 1998/99 tobacco use supplement surveys are the primary data source, supplemented with information on state level tobacco control policies. Methods: The national and state rate of bans are estimated, and changes over the course of the 1990s and their relation to smoking rates and tobacco control policies are examined. Results: The prevalence of work and home bans has increased considerably between 1992/93 and 1998/99. By 1999, over 65% of the population age 15 and above work in places with smoking bans, and over 60% live in homes with bans. We found that states with lower than average ban rates in 1993 tended to have had larger increases in ban rates between 1993 and 1999. We also found that home and work bans became more prevalent in states with initially low smoking rates, and that the growth in home bans coincided with a declining prevalence of smoking. States with higher levels of bans by 1999 also tended to have higher cigarette taxes, stricter clean air laws, and media/comprehensive campaigns in place. Conclusions: The results indicate that lower smoking rates are associated with higher rates of work and home bans, although substantial progress has also been made by those states with initially low rates of bans. While further work is needed to establish the direction of causality, it would appear that reductions in smoking rates, either through stronger tobacco control policies or otherwise, may reduce exposure to tobacco smoke not only by reducing the number of smokers, but also through increasing the number of firms and homes with smoking restrictions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据