Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure ...

Bartecchi 2006 (Continued)
Outcomes AMI hospitalization rates pre and post ban inside, and outside city limits of Puebloand a neighbouring county (El
Paso County); adjustment for seasonality was made
Biochemical verification: No.
Notes
Biener 2007
Methods Country: USA
Setting: Boston and other Massachusetts cities
Design: Observational study, cross-sectional surveys, pre and post-ban surveys. Analysis: P values based on chi 2 test.
Bivariate comparisons and multinomial logistic analysis to determine independent predictors of changes from preto
post-law.
Participants Baseline sample: Sub-sample of all baseline smokers and recent quitters and all young adults between 18-30 yrs from
large longitudinal study.
Follow up: Cohort 986. 83 live in Boston and 903 live in other Massachusetts towns without smoke-free regulations.
57% of all the baseline smokers who completed the follow-up interview. Only smokers who completed both the
baseline and follow-up surveys and whose follow-up interview occurred after the implementation of the smoking
ordinance were included in the analysis. This excluded 316 eligible respondents who lived in one of 78 Massachusetts
cities or towns that had a smoke-free bar regulation in place prior to July 2004.
Sample characteristics: Boston n=83, Female: 54.8% 95% CI (42.3 to 66.7), Age yrs: 31 and over 71.9% (58.9,
82.5). Education: Some college or more: 48.4% (36.7, 60.2).
Other MA town % (95% CI), n=903. Female 53.9% (50 to 57.8), Age 31 and over: 75.6% (72.0 to 78.8). Education:
Some college or more: 50.1%(46.2 to 54.0).
No significant difference in demographics such as age, gender, ethnicity, education or marital status or in smoking
patterns, patronage patterns or support for the smoking ban at baseline between those smokers at baseline who
responded at follow up and those who did not.
Differences between participants in Boston and other Massachusetts (MA) towns at baseline: More minorities (48.4%
vs 11.4%, 95% CI), unmarried people (76.6% vs 51.5%, 95% CI), less heavy smokers (27% vs 39.9%, 95% CI)
and more support for the smoking ban at baseline in Boston than in other MA towns (15.7% vs 7.4%, 95% CI).
Interventions Evaluated a smoke-free workplace ordinance in May 2003 in Boston. It prohibited smoking in all workplaces including
bars and restaurants.
Outcomes Self-reported exposure to SHS at home
Self-reported smoking at home
Biochemical verification: No
Notes Other outcomes include compliance with smoking bans, economic impact such as bar patronage and support for the
implementation of bans.
Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption (Review)
Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
26