Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure ...

Goodman 2007 (Continued)
Outcomes Self-reported exposure to SHS in the workplace as defined by number of hrs exposed in the workplace and total hrs
exposed.
Self-reported respiratory and sensory irritant symptoms
Pulmonary function tests
Biochemical verification: Yes; exposure to SHS measured by saliva cotinine and exhaled CO.
Notes Barworkers recruited through their trade union and participation was voluntary. Other outcomes reported are support
for the ban, air quality as well as compliance with the ban by observations of smoking pre and 1 yr post-law.
Gotz 2008
Methods Country: England
Setting: Public houses, bars, clubs, bingo halls, cafes, betting shops and private member clubs selected from six regions
in England: East of England, East Midlands, North East, South East, South West and West Midlands.
Design: Pre and post-ban tests. Cross-sectional surveys and a cross-sectional analysis of cohort who had completed
both surveys. Analysis: Means and log-transformed t-test values for cotinine concentrations at baseline and follow
up.
Participants Total: 83 participants. Excluded those who reported been smokers or having smoked in the last yr, those who reported
been exposed to SHS outside work, those with breath carbon monoxide, >10 ppm. or salivary cotinine >20ng/ml.
Baseline = 66 employees. Female: 58%,18-34 yrs: 62%
Follow up = 48 employees. Female: 50%, 18-34 yrs: 60%. 39 employees in matched analysis
Interventions Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006 implemented in England on 1 July 2007 which bans
smoking in enclosed public places including bars and restaurants.
Outcomes Exposure to SHS as measured by salivary cotinine analysis one month before and at one month follow up.
Biochemical verification: Yes
Notes Other outcomes measured were air quality in the venues visited and compliance with the smoking ban legislation.
Hahn 2006
Methods Country: USA
Setting: Bars and restaurants in Lexington, Kentucky
Design: Observation study. One group. Cross-sectional surveys pre and post- ban. Analysis: paired t test, ANCOVA
, Fischer least significant difference procedure for ANOVA and GEE (generalised estimating model).
Participants 105 employees participated in randomly selected bars and restaurants at Lexington-Fayette County.
(67.6%) 71/105 responded 3 months post-ban. 32% attrition.
(57.1%) 60/105 responded 6 months post-ban. 43% attrition from baseline; due to changing jobs or moving.
Missing outcome data: No difference between respondents at both baseline and 3 months compared to non-respondents
at 3 months for gender, age, ethnicity, education, smoking status and cigarettes smoked per day. Carried out
Intention to Treat analysis and assumed that participants not followed up at three months had the same nicotine
values as they had at baseline. Participants not followed up at three months had higher nicotine values at baseline
than those who were also tested at three month follow up (t=2.3, P =0.02).
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.
38