This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

The Case for a Smoke-Free Workplace

Ron Borland, PhD; John P. Pierce, PhD; David M. Burns, MD; Elizabeth Gilpin, MS; Michael Johnson, PhD; Dileep Bal, MD

JAMA. 1992;268(6):749-752.

Abstract
Objective.
—To determine the extent of exposure of nonsmoking indoor workers to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) according to type of work-site smoking policy, work area, workplace size, and demographic characteristics.

Design and Participants.
—Participants included 7162 adult, nonsmoking, indoor workers who were interviewed as part of the 1990 California Tobacco Survey. Respondents were asked whether anyone had smoked in their work area within the past 2 weeks.

Results.
—An estimated 2.2 million California nonsmokers were exposed to tobacco smoke at indoor work sites in 1990. Nonsmoker exposure to ETS was 9.3% for those working in a smoke-free worksite, 23.2% for those working where there was only a work-area restriction, 46.7% for those working where there was a policy that did not include the work area, and 51.4% for those working where there was no work-site smoking policy. After adjustment for type of work area (eg, office, open area), workplace size, and demographic factors, it was determined that nonsmokers working where there was only a work-area ban were 2.8 times more likely to be exposed to ETS than those working in a smoke-free work site. In workplaces with no policy or a policy not covering the work area, nonsmokers were over eight times more likely to be exposed to ETS than those who worked in a smoke-free work site. Nonsmokers who were 18 to 24 years of age, male, or Hispanic, and those with less than a high school education had more exposure to ETS.

Conclusion.
—These results indicate that adequate protection of nonsmokers from ETS exposure requires a smoke-free work site.

(JAMA. 1992;268:749-752)

Author Affiliations
From the Center for Behavioral Research in Cancer, Victorian Anti-Cancer Council, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (Dr Borland); the Center for Population Studies for Cancer Prevention, Cancer Center (Dr Pierce and Ms Gilpin), and the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine (Dr Burns), University of California, San Diego; and the Tobacco Control Section, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento (Drs Johnson and Bal).

Footnotes
Reprint requests to Population Studies for Cancer Prevention, Cancer Center, University of California, La Jolla, CA 92093-0901 (Dr Pierce).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Smoker-free workplace policies: developing a model of public health consequences of workplace policies barring employment to smokers
Houle and Siegel
Tobacco Control 2009;18:64-69.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Home Smoking Restrictions Among Koreans in Seoul
Hughes et al.
Asia Pac J Public Health 2009;21:63-70.
ABSTRACT  

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Bladder Cancer Risk in Never Smokers of Los Angeles County
Jiang et al.
Cancer Res. 2007;67:7540-7545.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Impact of smoke-free workplace legislation on exposures and health: possibilities for prevention.
Jaakkola and Jaakkola
Eur Respir J 2006;28:397-408.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Smoke-free laws and secondhand smoke exposure in US non-smoking adults, 1999-2002.
Pickett et al.
Tobacco Control 2006;15:302-307.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Reductions 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
Fong et al.
Tobacco Control 2006;15:iii51-iii58.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Socioeconomic and demographic differences in exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work: the Scania Public Health Survey 2000
Moussa et al.
Scand J Public Health 2004;32:194-202.
ABSTRACT  

Application of a rating system to state clean indoor air laws (USA)
Chriqui et al.
Tobacco Control 2002;11:26-34.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bartenders' Respiratory Health After Establishment of Smoke-Free Bars and Taverns
Eisner et al.
JAMA 1998;280:1909-1914.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The International Tobacco Strategy
Makary and Kawachi
JAMA 1998;280:1194-1195.
FULL TEXT  

Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Adult Asthma . The Impact of Changing Exposure Status on Health Outcomes
EISNER et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1998;158:170-175.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Exposure of the US Population to Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988 to 1991
Pirkle et al.
JAMA 1996;275:1233-1240.
ABSTRACT  

Hospital Smoking Bans and Employee Smoking Behavior: Results of a National Survey
Longo et al.
JAMA 1996;275:1252-1257.
ABSTRACT  

Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Health Effects and Prevention Policies
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical As
Arch Fam Med 1994;3:865-871.
ABSTRACT  

Settings as an Important Dimension in Health Education/Promotion Policy, Programs, and Research
Mullen et al.
Health Educ Behav 1994;22:329-345.
ABSTRACT  

New Tobacco Industry Strategy to Prevent Local Tobacco Control
Traynor et al.
JAMA 1993;270:479-486.
ABSTRACT  

Lower Levels of Cigarette Consumption Found in Smoke-Free Workplaces in California
Woodruff et al.
Arch Intern Med 1993;153:1485-1493.
ABSTRACT  

Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in California
Collett and Sterling
JAMA 1993;269:1388-1388.
ABSTRACT  

A Longitudinal Assessment of the Impact of Smoke-Free Worksite Policies on Tobacco Use
Bauer et al.
AJPH 2005;95:1024-1029.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT