Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults (Review)$

Mullally 2009 (Continued) Missing outcome data: Non-respondents at follow up were not significantly different in age, gender occupational class or smoking status but more likely to be younger, women and to be smokers than those who did respond at follow up (n= 22). Irish population: Random subsample. Analysis based on those aged 18-78 yrs and employed in equivalent occupational class to bar managers/owner and bar staff. Baseline: 1240 participants. 1 yr follow up: 1221 participants. Barworkers at baseline 88%
Pearson 2009 Methods Country: America Setting: Pubs, clubs, nightclubs and taverns in Washington D.C. Design: One group, pre- and post-ban tests. Analysis: Cotinine data analysed using Wilcoxon’s signed rank test for difference in medians and paired t-test for difference in means. McNemar’s chi square test to obtain p value for change in median number of respiratory and sensory symptoms, 1000 repetitions to obtain 95% CI. Participants Hospitality employees who were nonsmokers, non-users of NRT or tobacco products, live with non-smokers, working ≥20 hrs per wk at the site, restricted to employees who participated at baseline (2nd-21st December 2006) and follow up (1st-21st February 2007) and worked at the same venue during both periods. Baseline: 102 employees at 41 bars recruited. 1 employee did not have enough English to consent, 1 worked in a bar with existing smoking ban. 17 smokers (ineligible) and 17 refused. 66 eligible employees at baseline. Cohort: 46 employees. Female: 11%, worked mean 5 yrs in current job. Those who did not respond at follow up were more likely to be female and have worked for less yrs in hospitality establishments. Missing outcome data: 6 ineligible due to changing jobs, 6 due to bar closing, 1 due to bar exemption, 1 due to death. 2 were uncontactable (lost to follow up) and 1 refused. 3 were excluded with saliva cotinine >10 ng/ml. Interventions Legislation implemented on 2nd January 2007 in Washington D.C. banning smoking in indoor workplaces including bars, restaurants and pool halls. Establishments that earned ≥10% of their income from tobacco sales or had a 15% reduction in sales for a 3 month period during the ban compared to the previous 2 yrs could apply for an exemption. Outcomes Self-reported presence of respiratory and sensory symptoms from the validated International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease Bronchial Symptoms questionnaire. Exposure to SHS measured by saliva cotinine concentration ng/ml. Biochemical verification: Yes. Smoking status verified by saliva cotinine with >10 ng/ml confirmed as smokers and excluded from the analysis. Notes Other outcomes included measurements of attitudes such as support for the ban. Pell 2008 Methods Country: Scotland Setting: Scottish and English population. Design: Pre- and post-ban tests. Comparative analysis of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome for 10 months before the ban (June 2005 to March 2006) and in the follow-up period up to 10 months after the legislation was implemented (June 2006 - March 2007) in Scotland (intervention area) and England (control area without similar legislation). Data from England was obtained from Hospital Episode Statistics. Analysis: Chi 2 test used to calculate P values for trend. Two-sample t-tests to logarithmically transform data on cotinine. Calculated % reduction in the number of admissions and subgroup analysis according to gender and age group. Participants Patients admitted to hospital for acute coronary syndrome in Scotland and England during the same period of time. Participation rate patients with acute coronary syndrome: pre-law 2806/3235 (87%), post-law 2322/2684 (87%), P =0.80, chi 2 test. Interventions Smokefree legislation (Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Bill) implemented on 26th March, 2006 prohibiting smoking in indoor workplaces including bars, restaurants and cafes. 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. 47
Page 1 and 2: Legislative smoking bans for reduci
Page 3 and 4: [Intervention Review] Legislative s
Page 5 and 6: Health effects associated with expo
Page 7 and 8: policy. Any measure of smoking beha
Page 9 and 10: Length of follow up For smoking beh
Page 11 and 12: of borderline significance, (3.5%,
Page 13 and 14: was reduced, but there was no evide
Page 15 and 16: ar and restaurant workers before an
Page 17 and 18: Albers 2004 {published data only} A
Page 19 and 20: Gorini 2008a {published data only}
Page 21 and 22: Offord 1992 {published data only} O
Page 23 and 24: ehaviour and cessation intentions.
Page 25 and 26: C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F S
Page 27 and 28: Allwright 2005 (Continued) Outcomes
Page 29 and 30: Bondy 2009 Methods Country: Canada
Page 31 and 32: CDC 2007 Methods Country: USA Setti
Page 33 and 34: Eisner 1998 Methods Country: USA Se
Page 35 and 36: Fernando 2007 Methods Country: New
Page 37 and 38: Fong 2006 Methods Country: Ireland
Page 39 and 40: Galán 2007 (Continued) provided. O
Page 41 and 42: Hahn 2006 (Continued) Interventions
Page 43 and 44: Heloma 2003 (Continued) Participant
Page 45 and 46: Khuder 2007 Methods Country: USA Se
Page 47: Menzies 2006 (Continued) Notes Only
Page 51 and 52: Sargent 2004 (Continued) Outcomes N
Page 53 and 54: Vasselli 2008 (Continued) Outcomes
Page 55 and 56: (Continued) Borland 1992 Three cros
Page 57 and 58: (Continued) Goldstein 1992 Survey o
Page 59 and 60: (Continued) Minihan 1999 Cross-sect
Page 61 and 62: (Continued) Proescholdbell 2008 No
Page 63 and 64: (Continued) Tillgren 1998a Post-tes
Page 65 and 66: D A T A A N D A N A L Y S E S Compa
Page 67 and 68: Self-reported perceptions (Continue
Page 87 and 88: Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Results:
Page 89 and 90: Biomarkers of exposure (Continued)
Page 99 and 100:
Measures of Active Smoking: Smoking
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Respiratory (Continued) Eisner 1998
Page 109 and 110:
Respiratory (Continued) Goodman 200
Page 111 and 112:
Respiratory (Continued) Menzies 200
Page 113 and 114:
Respiratory (Continued) Lung functi
Page 115 and 116:
Lung function (Continued) Larsson 2
Page 117 and 118:
Sensory Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3
Page 119 and 120:
Sensory (Continued) Larsson 2008 Co
Page 121 and 122:
Sensory (Continued) 21%, p< 0.001.
Page 123 and 124:
Hospital admission for acute corona
Page 125 and 126:
Hospital admission for acute corona
Page 127 and 128:
#11 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #
show all

Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?