Cited by 1,072Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyWorkplace Health and Well-being

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

Open access
Fichtenberg, Caroline M, Glantz, Stanton A·2002·BMJ

Abstract

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 workplacesbecame 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

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.188

Cites

112 of 112 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Yurekli AA, Zhang P. The impact of clean indoor air laws and cigarette smuggling on demand for cigarettes: an empirical model. Health Econ 2000;9:159-70.
  2. Gruber J. Youth smoking in the US: prices and policies. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fichtenberg, C. M., & Glantz, S. A.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Glantz, Stanton A
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-07-27
Volume
325
Issue
7357
Pages
188
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2118699725
Cited by
1,072
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 68
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA061021, CA-61021)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
smoke-free workplaces, smoking behavior, tobacco taxation, cigarette consumption, smoking prevalence, workplace smoking policy, passive smoking, smoking cessation
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, Humans, Smoking, Tobacco Smoke Pollution, Occupational Health, Smoking Cessation, 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