Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law

Objective: To assess the impact on hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke of New York’s smoke-free law that prohibits smoking in all places of employment, including restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities. Design: Pre-post longitudinal follow up design. Settings: Restaurants, bars, and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Tobacco control 2005-08, Vol.14 (4), p.236-241
Hauptverfasser: Farrelly, M C, Nonnemaker, J M, Chou, R, Hyland, A, Peterson, K K, Bauer, U E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 241
container_issue 4
container_start_page 236
container_title Tobacco control
container_volume 14
creator Farrelly, M C
Nonnemaker, J M
Chou, R
Hyland, A
Peterson, K K
Bauer, U E
description Objective: To assess the impact on hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke of New York’s smoke-free law that prohibits smoking in all places of employment, including restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities. Design: Pre-post longitudinal follow up design. Settings: Restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities in New York State. Subjects: At baseline, 104 non-smoking workers in restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities were recruited with newspaper ads, flyers, and radio announcements. Of these, 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen at baseline. At three, six, and 12 month follow up studies, 47, 38, and 32 workers from the baseline sample of 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Intervention: The smoke-free law went into effect 24 July 2003. Main outcome measures: Self reported sensory and respiratory symptoms and exposure to secondhand smoke; self administered saliva cotinine specimens. Analyses were limited to subjects in all four study periods who completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Results: All analyses were limited to participants who completed both an interview and a saliva specimen for all waves of data collection (n  =  30) and who had cotinine concentrations ⩽ 15 ng/ml (n  =  24). Hours of exposure to secondhand smoke in hospitality jobs decreased from 12.1 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.3 hours) to 0.2 hours (95% CI −0.1 to 0.5 hours) (p < 0.01) and saliva cotinine concentration decreased from 3.6 ng/ml (95% CI 2.6 to 4.7 ng/ml) to 0.8 ng/ml (95% CI 0.4 to 1.2 ng/ml) (p < 0.01) from baseline to the 12 month follow up. The prevalence of workers reporting sensory symptoms declined from 88% (95% CI 66% to 96%) to 38% (95% CI 20% to 59%) (p < 0.01); there was no change in the overall prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms (p < 0.16). Conclusion: New York’s smoke-free law had its intended effect of protecting hospitality workers from exposure to secondhand smoke within three months of implementation. One year after implementation, the results suggest continued compliance with the law.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/tc.2004.008839
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1748080</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>20747844</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20747844</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-c605847d0195be0562b1bcf437fdd49d0780fee09590f3ce93b7ce7bf85d8c1f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkTuPEzEUhUeIFRsWWjqQJSqKCdczfk2DBBEvaVmEeEhU1jyuEycz42A7ZJeKv8Hf45esVxMFqKhucb5z7pFOlj2gMKe0FE9jOy8A2BxAqbK6lc0oEyovS6puZzOoBMsZF-VpdjeENQAtJad3slMqgAmh-Cz7sVjV4xIDsSNZubC1se5tvCJ75zfow--fvwhebl3YeSTRkYCtG7tk6UgY3AaJcX3v9nZckrhCYodtjwOOsY7WjcQZcoF78jVlpaAwWXLjEUlf7-9lJ6buA94_3LPs86uXnxZv8vP3r98unp_nDZci5q0ArpjsgFa8QeCiaGjTGlZK03Ws6kAqMIhQ8QpM2WJVNrJF2RjFO9VSU55lz6bc7a4ZsGtTPV_3euvtUPsr7Wqr_1VGu9JL911TyRQoSAGPDwHefdthiHrtdn5MnROiqOJMySJR84lqvQvBozl-oKBvttKx1Tdb6WmrZHj0d68_-GGcBDycgHWIzh_1AiSTirGk55NuQ8TLo177jRYyLa0vviw0K9694PCh0B8T_2Tim2H9v3LXeua6Dg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781854872</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Farrelly, M C ; Nonnemaker, J M ; Chou, R ; Hyland, A ; Peterson, K K ; Bauer, U E</creator><creatorcontrib>Farrelly, M C ; Nonnemaker, J M ; Chou, R ; Hyland, A ; Peterson, K K ; Bauer, U E</creatorcontrib><description>Objective: To assess the impact on hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke of New York’s smoke-free law that prohibits smoking in all places of employment, including restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities. Design: Pre-post longitudinal follow up design. Settings: Restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities in New York State. Subjects: At baseline, 104 non-smoking workers in restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities were recruited with newspaper ads, flyers, and radio announcements. Of these, 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen at baseline. At three, six, and 12 month follow up studies, 47, 38, and 32 workers from the baseline sample of 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Intervention: The smoke-free law went into effect 24 July 2003. Main outcome measures: Self reported sensory and respiratory symptoms and exposure to secondhand smoke; self administered saliva cotinine specimens. Analyses were limited to subjects in all four study periods who completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Results: All analyses were limited to participants who completed both an interview and a saliva specimen for all waves of data collection (n  =  30) and who had cotinine concentrations ⩽ 15 ng/ml (n  =  24). Hours of exposure to secondhand smoke in hospitality jobs decreased from 12.1 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.3 hours) to 0.2 hours (95% CI −0.1 to 0.5 hours) (p &lt; 0.01) and saliva cotinine concentration decreased from 3.6 ng/ml (95% CI 2.6 to 4.7 ng/ml) to 0.8 ng/ml (95% CI 0.4 to 1.2 ng/ml) (p &lt; 0.01) from baseline to the 12 month follow up. The prevalence of workers reporting sensory symptoms declined from 88% (95% CI 66% to 96%) to 38% (95% CI 20% to 59%) (p &lt; 0.01); there was no change in the overall prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms (p &lt; 0.16). Conclusion: New York’s smoke-free law had its intended effect of protecting hospitality workers from exposure to secondhand smoke within three months of implementation. One year after implementation, the results suggest continued compliance with the law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0964-4563</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3318</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/tc.2004.008839</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16046685</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Adolescent ; Adult ; ban ; Cigar smoking ; Cigarette smoking ; Cotinine - metabolism ; Data collection ; Data sampling ; Enzymes ; Exposure ; Female ; Follow up studies ; Health risk assessment ; Hospitality ; Humans ; Lung diseases ; Male ; Middle Aged ; New York City ; Occupational Exposure - analysis ; Occupational Exposure - legislation & jurisprudence ; Occupational Exposure - prevention & control ; Passive smoking ; Research Paper ; Respiration Disorders - etiology ; Respiratory symptoms ; Restaurants ; Restaurants - legislation & jurisprudence ; restriction ; Saliva ; Saliva - metabolism ; Secondhand smoke ; Sensation Disorders - etiology ; Smoke ; Smoking ; Smoking - legislation & jurisprudence ; Smoking Prevention ; Studies ; Tobacco smoke ; Tobacco Smoke Pollution - analysis ; Tobacco Smoke Pollution - legislation & jurisprudence ; Tobacco Smoke Pollution - prevention & control ; Workplaces]]></subject><ispartof>Tobacco control, 2005-08, Vol.14 (4), p.236-241</ispartof><rights>Copyright 2005 Tobacco Control</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT © 2005 BMJ Publishing Group</rights><rights>Copyright: 2005 Copyright 2005 Tobacco Control</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-c605847d0195be0562b1bcf437fdd49d0780fee09590f3ce93b7ce7bf85d8c1f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-c605847d0195be0562b1bcf437fdd49d0780fee09590f3ce93b7ce7bf85d8c1f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20747844$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/20747844$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,803,885,27924,27925,53791,53793,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046685$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Farrelly, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nonnemaker, J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chou, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyland, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterson, K K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauer, U E</creatorcontrib><title>Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law</title><title>Tobacco control</title><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><description>Objective: To assess the impact on hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke of New York’s smoke-free law that prohibits smoking in all places of employment, including restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities. Design: Pre-post longitudinal follow up design. Settings: Restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities in New York State. Subjects: At baseline, 104 non-smoking workers in restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities were recruited with newspaper ads, flyers, and radio announcements. Of these, 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen at baseline. At three, six, and 12 month follow up studies, 47, 38, and 32 workers from the baseline sample of 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Intervention: The smoke-free law went into effect 24 July 2003. Main outcome measures: Self reported sensory and respiratory symptoms and exposure to secondhand smoke; self administered saliva cotinine specimens. Analyses were limited to subjects in all four study periods who completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Results: All analyses were limited to participants who completed both an interview and a saliva specimen for all waves of data collection (n  =  30) and who had cotinine concentrations ⩽ 15 ng/ml (n  =  24). Hours of exposure to secondhand smoke in hospitality jobs decreased from 12.1 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.3 hours) to 0.2 hours (95% CI −0.1 to 0.5 hours) (p &lt; 0.01) and saliva cotinine concentration decreased from 3.6 ng/ml (95% CI 2.6 to 4.7 ng/ml) to 0.8 ng/ml (95% CI 0.4 to 1.2 ng/ml) (p &lt; 0.01) from baseline to the 12 month follow up. The prevalence of workers reporting sensory symptoms declined from 88% (95% CI 66% to 96%) to 38% (95% CI 20% to 59%) (p &lt; 0.01); there was no change in the overall prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms (p &lt; 0.16). Conclusion: New York’s smoke-free law had its intended effect of protecting hospitality workers from exposure to secondhand smoke within three months of implementation. One year after implementation, the results suggest continued compliance with the law.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>ban</subject><subject>Cigar smoking</subject><subject>Cigarette smoking</subject><subject>Cotinine - metabolism</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Data sampling</subject><subject>Enzymes</subject><subject>Exposure</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow up studies</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Hospitality</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lung diseases</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>New York City</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - analysis</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Passive smoking</subject><subject>Research Paper</subject><subject>Respiration Disorders - etiology</subject><subject>Respiratory symptoms</subject><subject>Restaurants</subject><subject>Restaurants - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>restriction</subject><subject>Saliva</subject><subject>Saliva - metabolism</subject><subject>Secondhand smoke</subject><subject>Sensation Disorders - etiology</subject><subject>Smoke</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Smoking - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Smoking Prevention</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tobacco smoke</subject><subject>Tobacco Smoke Pollution - analysis</subject><subject>Tobacco Smoke Pollution - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</subject><subject>Tobacco Smoke Pollution - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Workplaces</subject><issn>0964-4563</issn><issn>1468-3318</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkTuPEzEUhUeIFRsWWjqQJSqKCdczfk2DBBEvaVmEeEhU1jyuEycz42A7ZJeKv8Hf45esVxMFqKhucb5z7pFOlj2gMKe0FE9jOy8A2BxAqbK6lc0oEyovS6puZzOoBMsZF-VpdjeENQAtJad3slMqgAmh-Cz7sVjV4xIDsSNZubC1se5tvCJ75zfow--fvwhebl3YeSTRkYCtG7tk6UgY3AaJcX3v9nZckrhCYodtjwOOsY7WjcQZcoF78jVlpaAwWXLjEUlf7-9lJ6buA94_3LPs86uXnxZv8vP3r98unp_nDZci5q0ArpjsgFa8QeCiaGjTGlZK03Ws6kAqMIhQ8QpM2WJVNrJF2RjFO9VSU55lz6bc7a4ZsGtTPV_3euvtUPsr7Wqr_1VGu9JL911TyRQoSAGPDwHefdthiHrtdn5MnROiqOJMySJR84lqvQvBozl-oKBvttKx1Tdb6WmrZHj0d68_-GGcBDycgHWIzh_1AiSTirGk55NuQ8TLo177jRYyLa0vviw0K9694PCh0B8T_2Tim2H9v3LXeua6Dg</recordid><startdate>20050801</startdate><enddate>20050801</enddate><creator>Farrelly, M C</creator><creator>Nonnemaker, J M</creator><creator>Chou, R</creator><creator>Hyland, A</creator><creator>Peterson, K K</creator><creator>Bauer, U E</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20050801</creationdate><title>Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law</title><author>Farrelly, M C ; Nonnemaker, J M ; Chou, R ; Hyland, A ; Peterson, K K ; Bauer, U E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b576t-c605847d0195be0562b1bcf437fdd49d0780fee09590f3ce93b7ce7bf85d8c1f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>ban</topic><topic>Cigar smoking</topic><topic>Cigarette smoking</topic><topic>Cotinine - metabolism</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Data sampling</topic><topic>Enzymes</topic><topic>Exposure</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow up studies</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Hospitality</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lung diseases</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>New York City</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - analysis</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Passive smoking</topic><topic>Research Paper</topic><topic>Respiration Disorders - etiology</topic><topic>Respiratory symptoms</topic><topic>Restaurants</topic><topic>Restaurants - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>restriction</topic><topic>Saliva</topic><topic>Saliva - metabolism</topic><topic>Secondhand smoke</topic><topic>Sensation Disorders - etiology</topic><topic>Smoke</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Smoking - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Smoking Prevention</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tobacco smoke</topic><topic>Tobacco Smoke Pollution - analysis</topic><topic>Tobacco Smoke Pollution - legislation &amp; jurisprudence</topic><topic>Tobacco Smoke Pollution - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Workplaces</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Farrelly, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nonnemaker, J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chou, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyland, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peterson, K K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bauer, U E</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest_ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM trade &amp; industry</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Family Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Farrelly, M C</au><au>Nonnemaker, J M</au><au>Chou, R</au><au>Hyland, A</au><au>Peterson, K K</au><au>Bauer, U E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law</atitle><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><date>2005-08-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>236</spage><epage>241</epage><pages>236-241</pages><issn>0964-4563</issn><eissn>1468-3318</eissn><abstract>Objective: To assess the impact on hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke of New York’s smoke-free law that prohibits smoking in all places of employment, including restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities. Design: Pre-post longitudinal follow up design. Settings: Restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities in New York State. Subjects: At baseline, 104 non-smoking workers in restaurants, bars, and bowling facilities were recruited with newspaper ads, flyers, and radio announcements. Of these, 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen at baseline. At three, six, and 12 month follow up studies, 47, 38, and 32 workers from the baseline sample of 68 completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Intervention: The smoke-free law went into effect 24 July 2003. Main outcome measures: Self reported sensory and respiratory symptoms and exposure to secondhand smoke; self administered saliva cotinine specimens. Analyses were limited to subjects in all four study periods who completed a telephone survey and provided at least one saliva cotinine specimen. Results: All analyses were limited to participants who completed both an interview and a saliva specimen for all waves of data collection (n  =  30) and who had cotinine concentrations ⩽ 15 ng/ml (n  =  24). Hours of exposure to secondhand smoke in hospitality jobs decreased from 12.1 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0 to 16.3 hours) to 0.2 hours (95% CI −0.1 to 0.5 hours) (p &lt; 0.01) and saliva cotinine concentration decreased from 3.6 ng/ml (95% CI 2.6 to 4.7 ng/ml) to 0.8 ng/ml (95% CI 0.4 to 1.2 ng/ml) (p &lt; 0.01) from baseline to the 12 month follow up. The prevalence of workers reporting sensory symptoms declined from 88% (95% CI 66% to 96%) to 38% (95% CI 20% to 59%) (p &lt; 0.01); there was no change in the overall prevalence of upper respiratory symptoms (p &lt; 0.16). Conclusion: New York’s smoke-free law had its intended effect of protecting hospitality workers from exposure to secondhand smoke within three months of implementation. One year after implementation, the results suggest continued compliance with the law.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>16046685</pmid><doi>10.1136/tc.2004.008839</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0964-4563
ispartof Tobacco control, 2005-08, Vol.14 (4), p.236-241
issn 0964-4563
1468-3318
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1748080
source MEDLINE; Free E-Journal (出版社公開部分のみ); PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; JSTOR
subjects Adolescent
Adult
ban
Cigar smoking
Cigarette smoking
Cotinine - metabolism
Data collection
Data sampling
Enzymes
Exposure
Female
Follow up studies
Health risk assessment
Hospitality
Humans
Lung diseases
Male
Middle Aged
New York City
Occupational Exposure - analysis
Occupational Exposure - legislation & jurisprudence
Occupational Exposure - prevention & control
Passive smoking
Research Paper
Respiration Disorders - etiology
Respiratory symptoms
Restaurants
Restaurants - legislation & jurisprudence
restriction
Saliva
Saliva - metabolism
Secondhand smoke
Sensation Disorders - etiology
Smoke
Smoking
Smoking - legislation & jurisprudence
Smoking Prevention
Studies
Tobacco smoke
Tobacco Smoke Pollution - analysis
Tobacco Smoke Pollution - legislation & jurisprudence
Tobacco Smoke Pollution - prevention & control
Workplaces
title Changes in hospitality workers’ exposure to secondhand smoke following the implementation of New York’s smoke-free law
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T10%3A16%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Changes%20in%20hospitality%20workers%E2%80%99%20exposure%20to%20secondhand%20smoke%20following%20the%20implementation%20of%20New%20York%E2%80%99s%20smoke-free%20law&rft.jtitle=Tobacco%20control&rft.au=Farrelly,%20M%20C&rft.date=2005-08-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=236&rft.epage=241&rft.pages=236-241&rft.issn=0964-4563&rft.eissn=1468-3318&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/tc.2004.008839&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E20747844%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781854872&rft_id=info:pmid/16046685&rft_jstor_id=20747844&rfr_iscdi=true