The impact of smoke-free legislation on indoor air quality in bars in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.4 Self reported symptoms Before the introduction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>legislation</strong> 58% (n=18) <strong>of</strong> respondents reported experiencing symptoms or effects which they felt were directly related to being exposed to environmental tobacco <strong>smoke</strong> in the workplace. After the <strong>legislation</strong>, 16% (n = 5) reported experiencing symptoms or effects. This decrease was statistically significant ( = 9.431, df = 1, p = 0.0021). Those respondents who reported experiencing symptoms/effects were asked to describe them (table 5.1). <strong>The</strong> main reported symptoms pre <strong>legislation</strong> were dry/sore eyes (29%), sore throat (19%) chesty/dry cough (19%) smell on clothes (16%). After the <strong>legislation</strong>, the main symptoms were sore throat (10%) and chesty cough (3%). <strong>The</strong> average number <strong>of</strong> health related symptoms before the <strong>legislation</strong> was 0.87 compared to 0.16 after the <strong>legislation</strong>. Table 5.1: Symptoms/Effects experienced as a result <strong>of</strong> being exposed to Environmental Tobacco Smoke before and after the smoking <strong>legislation</strong> Before After Symptoms/effects No. % No. % Cough (chesty/dry) 6 19 1 3 Asthma 2 7 1 3 Eyes (dry/sore) 9 29 0 0 Nose 2 7 0 0 Sore throat 6 19 3 10 Colds 1 3 0 0 Smell on clothes 5 16 0 0 Wheezing 0 0 0 0 Feeling choked up 1 3 0 0 Base 18 * multiple response, therefore percentages may not add to 100% 5.5 Impact on premises Respondents were asked how they felt the smoking <strong>legislation</strong> would <strong>impact</strong> on the premises (figure 5.2). Pre <strong>legislation</strong> results indicate a balanced response with very little variation in the number <strong>of</strong> people who anticipated the <strong>legislation</strong> would have either positive (26%), negative (23%), no effect (26%) or both a positive and negative (26%) <strong>impact</strong> on the premises. More notable variations were shown post <strong>legislation</strong> with a considerable increase in the number <strong>of</strong> respondents feeling the <strong>legislation</strong> had had a positive <strong>impact</strong> (45%) and a decrease in the number <strong>of</strong> respondents who thought it had had a negative <strong>impact</strong> (7%). Those believing the <strong>legislation</strong> would not have any <strong>impact</strong> (i.e. neither positive nor negative) increased to 39% post <strong>legislation</strong>. Changes in the proportion <strong>of</strong> respondents reporting a positive and a negative <strong>impact</strong> before and after the introduction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>legislation</strong> were not quite statistically significant (Fishers exact test, p = 0.0538). 5 16
Figure 5.2: Impact <strong>of</strong> smoking <strong>legislation</strong> on premises before and after the smoking <strong>legislation</strong> 40% 30% Percent 50% 20% 10% 0% 26% Positively 47% 23% Negatively 5.6 Smoking policy within premises 7% Not at all Impact <strong>of</strong> smoking <strong>legislation</strong> on premises Both positively and negatively Figure 5.3 shows the smoking policy within premises before and after the introduction <strong>of</strong> the <strong>smoke</strong>-<strong>free</strong> <strong>legislation</strong>. It can be seen that 97% allowed smoking, with 90% allowing smoking throughout the premises. A minority (3%) did not allow smoking anywhere. After the introduction <strong>of</strong> <strong>legislation</strong>, 81% did not allow smoking anywhere, with 19% allowing smoking in designated smoking areas. <strong>The</strong> changes in the proportion <strong>of</strong> premises allowing smoking anywhere or in designated areas and not allowing smoking anywhere are statistically significant (Chi square = 38.15, df = 1, p = 0.000) 26% 40% Before <strong>legislation</strong> After <strong>legislation</strong> 26% 7% 17
Page 1 and 2: The impact
Page 3 and 4: Contents Page Executive Summary ...
Page 5 and 6: 1. A programme of
Page 7 and 8: 1.2. Aims and objectives Th
Page 9 and 10: 2.3 Measurements PM2.5 was selected
Page 11 and 12: Figure 2.2: Passive sampler used to
Page 13 and 14: Overall, mean PM2.5 concentrations
Page 15 and 16: 4. Impact on Air Nicotine 4.1 Intro
Page 17: 5. Survey of bar s
Page 21 and 22: 6. Discussion 6.1 Introduction This
Page 23 and 24: Table 6.2: Comparison of</s
Page 25 and 26: notes that in the US, there are jur
Page 27 and 28: 8. References Allwright S, Paul G,
Page 29 and 30: Control 17:159-165. Available from
Page 31 and 32: World Health Organization, 2005, Pa
Page 33 and 34: Name: Premises: ABOUT YOU 1. Have y
Page 35 and 36: If yes, what are these views? Posit

The impact of smoke-free legislation on indoor air quality in bars in ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?