Vaccination News Home Page

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/325/7357/188

Abridged text of this article PDF [abridged] of this article Full text of this article PDF of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article Read responses to this article See related This week in BMJ item Related editorials in BMJ PubMed citation Related articles in PubMed Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: Fichtenberg, C. M || Glantz, S. A Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Environmental Issues Occupational Health Systematic reviews (incl meta-analyses): examples Other respiratory medicine Drugs: infections International health

BMJ 2002;325:188 ( 27 July )
 

Papers

Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review

Caroline M Fichtenberg, research fellow,  Stanton A Glantz, professor of medicine. 

Correspondence to: S A Glantz glantz@medicine.ucsf.edu

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 to 3.14) in the United States and from £3.44 to £6.59 (5.32 to 10.20) 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 annually in lost sales. To achieve similar reductions tax per pack would have to increase to $1.11 and £4.26.
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.

 

© BMJ 2002

This article has been cited by other articles:

• West, R. (2002). Banning smoking in the workplace. BMJ 325: 174-175 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

A Smoke-Free Womb Would be a Good Start

Tony Floyd

bmj.com, 26 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Can smoking bans be enforced?

Frank J Leavitt

bmj.com, 29 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Related editorials in BMJ:

Banning smoking in the workplace .

Robert West
BMJ 2002 325: 174-175. [Full text]  

 

Vaccination News Home Page

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.