CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Smoking Behavior and CessationOccupational Health and Safety in WorkplacesWorkplace Health and Well-being

Secondhand smoke exposure in the workplace

Skeer, Margie, Cheng, Debbie M., Rigotti, Nancy A., Siegel, Michael·2005·American Journal of Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.01.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Currently, there is little understanding of the relationship between the strength of workplace smoking policies and the likelihood and duration, not just the likelihood, of exposure to secondhand smoke at work.Methods This study assessed self-reported exposure to secondhand smoke at work in hours per week among a cross-sectional sample of 3650 Massachusetts adults who were employed primarily at a single worksite outside the home that was not mainly outdoors. The sample data were from a larger longitudinal study designed to examine the effect of community-based tobacco control interventions on adult and youth smoking behavior. Participants were identified through a random-digit-dialing telephone survey. Multiple logistic regression and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models were used to estimate the independent effect of workplace smoking policies on the likelihood and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke.Results Compared to employees whose workplace banned smoking completely, those whose workplace provided designated smoking areas had 2.9 times the odds of being exposed to secondhand smoke and 1.74 times the duration of exposure, while those with no restrictions had 10.27 times the odds of being exposed and 6.34 times the duration of exposure.Conclusions Workplace smoking policies substantially reduce the likelihood of self-reported secondhand smoke exposure among employees in the workplace and also greatly affect the duration of exposure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.01.007

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a cross-sectional study in Massachusetts, compared with employees in smoke-free worksites, those in worksites with designated smoking areas had a 2.9-fold higher odds (95% CI, 2.4, 3.5) of being exposed to secondhand smoke and were exposed 1.7 times longer (95% CI, 1.4, 2.2); employees in worksites where smoking was permitted had a 10.3-fold higher odds (95% CI, 6.7, 15.9) of being exposed to第二

    “In a cross-sectional study in Massachusetts, compared with employees in smoke-free worksites, those in worksites with designated smoking areas had a 2.9-fold higher odds (95% CI, 2.4, 3.5) of being exposed to secondhand smoke and were exposed 1.7 times longer (95% CI, 1.4, 2.2); employees in worksites where smoking was permitted had a 10.3-fold higher odds (95% CI, 6.7, 15.9) of being exposed to”

    From Population Approaches to Improve Diet, Physical Activity, and Smoking Habits: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (2012) · cites this paper as [440]

  • Among worksites that are not fully smoke-free, the designation of specific smoking areas is associated with fewer cigarettes smoked by smokers and less exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers.

    “Among worksites that are not fully smoke-free, the designation of specific smoking areas is associated with fewer cigarettes smoked by smokers and less exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers.”

    From Population Approaches to Improve Diet, Physical Activity, and Smoking Habits: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association (2012) · cites this paper as [440]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Skeer, M., Cheng, D. M., Rigotti, N. A., & Siegel, M.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Siegel, Michael
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-05
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
331-337
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.amepre.2005.01.007
OpenAlex
W1969585476
Cited by
23
References
38
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (5R01 CA 86257-03, R01CA086257)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
passive smoking, workplace smoking policy, designated smoking areas, smoking bans, duration of exposure, tobacco control, community-based intervention, employee health
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Tobacco Smoke Pollution, Multivariate Analysis, Logistic Models, Occupational Exposure, Workplace

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review