Examine the association of work and home smoking bans with quitting behaviors among employed female smokers in the United States.
Design.
Secondary analyses using cross-sectional data from the 2006/2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey.
Subjects.
Nationally representative sample of 7610 U.S. employed female smokers, aged 18 to 64 years, who reported working indoors.
Setting.
N/A.
Methods.
Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the association of smoking ban policies (complete work and home bans, complete work ban only, complete home ban only, and no complete work or home ban) with intention to quit in the next 30 days, at least one quit attempt in the past year, and sustained abstinence of at least 3 months in the past year.
Results.
Twenty-nine percent of women reported complete work and home smoking bans. Smoking bans were not associated with intention to quit and were marginally associated with sustained abstinence. Regardless of intention to quit, women with complete work and home bans were significantly more likely than those without complete work and home bans to report quit attempts. Among women with no intention to quit, the odds of having a quit attempt were significantly higher among women who had a complete home ban only compared with women without complete work and home bans.
Conclusions.
Efforts to promote quitting behaviors among employed female smokers may be facilitated by increasing rates of complete smoking bans at both work and home settings.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-attributable mortality, years of potential life lost, and productivity losses—United States, 2000–2004. MMWR.2008;57:1226–1228.
2.
US Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Health Consequences of Smoking for Women: A Report of the Surgeon General.Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1980.
3.
US Department of Health and Human ServicesWomen and Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General.Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2000.
4.
US Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General.Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2004.
5.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2007. MMWR.2008;57:1221–1226.
6.
National Cancer Institute: Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2007. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/. Accessed May 27, 2010.
7.
MooreRSLeeJPAntinTMMartinSE. Tobacco free workplace policies and low socioeconomic status female bartenders in San Francisco. J Epidemiol Community Health.2006;60(suppl 2):51–56.
8.
TongEKTangHTsohJSmoke-free policies among Asian-American women: comparisons by education status. Am J Prev Med.2009;37(suppl 2):S144–S150.
9.
GreavesLJategaonkarN. Tobacco policies and vulnerable girls and women: toward a framework for gender sensitive policy development. J Epidemiol Community Health.2006;60(suppl 2):57–65.
10.
GreavesLHemsingN. Women and tobacco control policies: social-structural and psychosocial contributions to vulnerability to tobacco use and exposure. Drug Alcohol Depend.2009;104(suppl 1):S121–S130.
US Department of Health and Human ServicesWomen, Tobacco, and Cancer: An Agenda for the 21st Century.Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute; 2004.
13.
FioreMCJaenCRBakerTBTreating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update. Clinical Practice Guideline.Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2008.
14.
World Health OrganizationMPower, Six Policies to Reverse the Tobacco Epidemic.Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.
15.
MooreRSAnnechinoRMLeeJP. Unintended consequences of smoke-free bar policies for low-SES women in three California counties. Am J Prev Med.2009;37(suppl 2):S138–S143.
16.
AlpertHRCarpenterCMTraversMJConnollyGN. Environmental and economic evaluation of the Massachusetts smoke-free workplace law. J Community Health.2007;32:269–281.
17.
ArheartKLLeeDJDietzNADeclining trends in serum cotinine levels in US worker groups: the power of policy. J Occup Environ Med.2008;50:57–63.
18.
EdwardsRThomsonGWilsonNAfter the smoke has cleared: evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand. Tob Control.2008;17:e2.
19.
SkeerMChengDMRigottiNASiegelM. Secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace. Am J Prev Med.2005;28:331–337.
20.
StarkMJRohdeKMaherJEThe impact of clean indoor air exemptions and preemption policies on the prevalence of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen among nonsmoking bar and restaurant workers. Am J Public Health.2007;97:1457–1463.
21.
BorlandROwenNHockingB. Changes in smoking behaviour after a total workplace smoking ban. Aust J Public Health.1991;15:130–134.
22.
FarrellyMCEvansWNSfekasAE. The impact of workplace smoking bans: results from a national survey. Tob Control.1999;8:272–277.
23.
FichtenbergCMGlantzSA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ.2002;325:188.
24.
FongGTHylandABorlandRReductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tob Control.2006;15(suppl 3):iii51–iii58.
25.
ShieldsM. Smoking bans: influence on smoking prevalence. Health Rep.2007;18:9–24.
26.
US Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General.Atlanta, Ga: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2006.
27.
McNabolaAGillLW. The control of environmental tobacco smoke: a policy review. Int J Environ Res Public Health.2009;6:741–758.
28.
BurnsDMShanksTGMajorJMRestrictions on smoking in the workplace. In Population Based Smoking Cessation: Proceedings of a Conference on What Works to Influence Cessation in the General Population. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 12. Bethesda, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2000:99–128, NIH publication 00-4892.
29.
BauerJEHylandALiQStegerCCummingsKM. A longitudinal assessment of the impact of smoke-free worksite policies on tobacco use. Am J Public Health.2005;95:1024–1029.
30.
GlasgowRECummingsKMHylandA. Relationship of worksite smoking policy to changes in employee tobacco use: findings from COMMIT. Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation. Tob Control.1997;6(suppl 2):S44–S48.
31.
BorlandRChapmanSOwenNHillD. Effects of workplace smoking bans on cigarette consumption. Am J Public Health.1990;80:178–180.
WoodruffTJRosbrookBPierceJGlantzSA. Lower levels of cigarette consumption found in smoke-free workplaces in California. Arch Intern Med.1993;153:1485–1493.
34.
ChapmanSBorlandRScolloMThe impact of smoke-free workplaces on declining cigarette consumption in Australia and the United States. Am J Public Health.1999;89:1018–1023.
35.
LongoDRJohnsonJCKruseRLA prospective investigation of the impact of smoking bans on tobacco cessation and relapse. Tob Control.2001;10:267–272.
36.
BrennerHMielckA. Smoking prohibition in the workplace and smoking cessation in the Federal Republic of Germany. Prev Med.1992;21:252–261.
37.
ShoplandDRAndersonCMBurnsDM. Association between home smoking restrictions and changes in smoking behaviour among employed women. J Epidemiol Community Health.2006;60(suppl 2):44–50.
38.
ShaversVLFaganPAlexanderLAWorkplace and home smoking restrictions and racial/ethnic variation in the prevalence and intensity of current cigarette smoking among women by poverty status, TUS-CPS 1998–1999 and 2001–2002. J Epidemiol Community Health.2006;60(suppl 2):34–43.
39.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Disparities in secondhand smoke exposure—United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2004. MMWR.2008;57:744–747.
40.
BorlandRYongHHCummingsKMDeterminants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control.2006;15(suppl 3):iii42–iii50.
41.
FarkasAJGilpinEADistefanJMPierceJP. The effects of household and workplace smoking restrictions on quitting behaviours. Tob Control.1999;8:261–265.
42.
GilpinEAWhiteMMFarkasAJPierceJP. Home smoking restrictions: which smokers have them and how they are associated with smoking behavior. Nicotine Tob Res.1999;1:153–162.
43.
HylandAHigbeeCTraversMJSmoke-free homes and smoking cessation and relapse in a longitudinal population of adults. Nicotine Tob Res.2009;11:614–618.
44.
LeeCWKahendeJ. Factors associated with successful smoking cessation in the United States, 2000. Am J Public Health.2007;97:1503–1509.
45.
MesserKMillsALWhiteMMPierceJP. The effect of smoke-free homes on smoking behavior in the U.S.Am J Prev Med.2008;35:210–216.
46.
PizacaniBAMartinDPStarkMJA prospective study of household smoking bans and subsequent cessation related behaviour: the role of stage of change. Tob Control.2004;13:23–28.
47.
ShieldsM. The journey to quitting smoking. Health Rep.2005;16:19–36.
BowlerMBHgREMillerSRevisions to the Current Population Survey Effective in January 2003.Washington, DC: US Bureau of Labor Statistics; 2003.
50.
NonnemakerJMHomsiG. Measurement properties of the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence adapted for use in an adolescent sample. Addict Behav.2007;32:181–186.
51.
RichardsonCGRatnerPA. A confirmatory factor analysis of the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence. Addict Behav.2005;30:697–709.
52.
HaddockCKLandoHKlesgesRCA study of the psychometric and predictive properties of the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence in a population of young smokers. Nicotine Tob Res.1999;1:59–66.
53.
RadziusAGalloJJEpsteinDHA factor analysis of the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence (FTND). Nicotine Tob Res.2003;5:255–260.
54.
EtterJFDucTVPernegerTV. Validity of the Fagerström test for nicotine dependence and of the heaviness of smoking index among relatively light smokers. Addiction.1999;94:269–281.
55.
LevyDTRomanoEMumfordE. The relationship of smoking cessation to sociodemographic characteristics, smoking intensity, and tobacco control policies. Nicotine Tob Res.2005;7:387–396.
56.
National Cancer Institute. Population Based Smoking Cessation Proceedings of a Conference on What Works to Influence Cessation in the General Population. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph No. 12. Bethesda, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. NIH publication 00-4892.
57.
KornELGraubardBIAnalysis of Health Surveys.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1999.
58.
HosmerDLemeshowSApplied Logistic Regression.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1989.
59.
MooreRSLeeJPMartinSECorrelates of persistent smoking in bars subject to smokefree workplace policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health.2009;6:1341–1357.
60.
BurgessDJFuSSvan RynM. Potential unintended consequences of tobacco-control policies on mothers who smoke: a review of the literature. Am J Prev Med.2009;37(2 suppl):S151–S158.
61.
YaoTLeeAHMaoZ. Potential unintended consequences of smoke-free policies in public places on pregnant women in China. Am J Prev Med.2009;37(2 suppl):S159–S164.
62.
LeatherdaleSTShieldsM. Smoking cessation: intentions, attempts, and techniques. Health Rep.2009;20:1–9.
63.
HylandABorlandRLiQIndividual-level predictors of cessation behaviours among participants in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tob Control.2006;15(suppl 3):iii83–iii94.
