Editorial response: moving from core groups to risk spaces.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Adolescent↗
Biomedical subjects
Caroline M Fichtenberg
Publications and source records attributed to Caroline M Fichtenberg.
Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effects of smoke-free workplaces on smoking in employees and compare these effects to those achieved through tax increases. DESIGN: Systematic review with a random effects meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: 26 studies on the effects of smoke-free workplaces. SETTING: Workplaces in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Employees in unrestricted and totally smoke-free workplaces. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily cigarette consumption (per smoker and per employee) and smoking prevalence. RESULTS: Totally smoke-free workplaces are associated with reductions in prevalence of smoking of 3.8% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 4.7%) and 3.1 (2.4 to 3.8) fewer cigarettes smoked per day per continuing smoker. Combination of the effects of reduced prevalence and lower consumption per continuing smoker yields a mean reduction of 1.3 cigarettes per day per employee, which corresponds to a relative reduction of 29%. To achieve similar reductions the tax on a pack of cigarettes would have to increase from $0.76 to $3.05 (0.78 euro to 3.14 euro) in the United States and from 3.44 pounds sterling to 6.59 pounds sterling (5.32 euro to 10.20 euro) in the United Kingdom. If all workplaces became smoke-free, consumption per capita in the entire population would drop by 4.5% in the United States and 7.6% in the United Kingdom, costing the tobacco industry $1.7 billion and 310 million pounds sterling annually in lost sales. To achieve similar reductions tax per pack would have to increase to $1.11 and 4.26 pounds sterling. CONCLUSIONS: Smoke-free workplaces not only protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking, they also encourage smokers to quit or to reduce consumption.
Adolescent↗
Youth access interventions do not affect youth smoking.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of laws restricting youth access to cigarettes on prevalence of smoking among teens. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of studies that reported changes in smoking associated with the presence of restrictions on the ability of teens to purchase cigarettes. We calculated the correlation between merchant compliance levels with youth access laws and prevalence (30-day and regular) prevalence of youth smoking, and between changes in compliance and prevalence associated with youth access interventions. We also conducted a random effects meta-analysis to determine the change in youth prevalence associated with youth access interventions from studies that included control communities. RESULTS: Based on data from 9 studies, there was no detectable relationship between the level of merchant compliance and 30-day (r =.116; n = 38 communities) or regular (r =.017) smoking prevalence. There was no evidence of a threshold effect. There was no evidence that an increase in compliance with youth access restrictions was associated with a decrease in 30-day (r =.294; n = 18 communities) or regular (r =.274) smoking prevalence. There was no significant difference in youth smoking in communities with youth access interventions compared with control communities; the pooled estimate of the effect of intervention on 30-day prevalence was -1.5% (95% confidence interval: -6.0% to +2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited resources available for tobacco control, as well as the expense of conducting youth access programs, tobacco control advocates should abandon this strategy and devote the limited resources that are available for tobacco control toward other interventions with proven effectiveness.
Adolescent↗