CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 286Smoking Behavior and CessationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyWorkplace Health and Well-being

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of workplace smoking bans: results from a national survey

Open access
Farrelly, M. C, Evans, W. N, Sfekas, A. E S·1999·Tobacco Control
DOI 10.1136/tc.8.3.272PMC PMC1763942
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the impact of workplace smoking restrictions on the prevalence and intensity of smoking among all indoor workers and various demographic and industry groups. DESIGN: Detailed cross sectional data on worker self reported characteristics, smoking histories, and workplace smoking policies were used in multivariate statistical models to examine whether workplace smoking policies reduce cigarette consumption. After analysing the distribution of policies, four main types of workplace programme were defined: (1) 100% smoke-free environments, (2) work area bans in which smoking is allowed in some common areas, (3) bans in some but not all work and common areas, and (4) minimal or no restrictions. SETTING: After environmental tobacco smoke was identified as a health hazard in the mid-1980s, workplace smoking restrictions became more prevalent. By 1993, nearly 82% of indoor workers faced some restriction on workplace smoking and 47% worked in 100% smoke-free environments. PARTICIPANTS: The database included a nationally representative sample from the tobacco use supplements to the September 1992, January 1993, and May 1993 Current Population Surveys of 97,882 indoor workers who were not self employed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of smoking and number of cigarettes smoked daily by smokers. RESULTS: Having a 100% smoke-free workplace reduced smoking prevalence by 6 percentage points and average daily consumption among smokers by 14% relative to workers subject to minimal or no restrictions. The impact of work area bans was lessened by allowing smoking in some common areas. Smoke-free policies reduced smoking for all demographic groups and in nearly all industries. CONCLUSIONS: Requiring all workplaces to be smoke free would reduce smoking prevalence by 10%. Workplace bans have their greatest impact on groups with the highest rates of smoking.

Overview

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/tc.8.3.272

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 13 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. A recent message to smokers in India. Impact of workplace smoking bans 277 on July 14, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.8.3.272 on 1 September 1999. Downloaded from

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 283

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Farrelly, M. C., Evans, W. N., & Sfekas, A. E. S.
Affiliations
RTI International (US)
Corresponding author
Farrelly, M. C
ORCID
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-09-01
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
272-277
ISSN
0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/tc.8.3.272
PMC
PMC1763942
OpenAlex
W2118380397
Cited by
286
References
13
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 24
FWCI
5.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Tobacco Control (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Workplace Health and Well-being
Keywords
workplace smoking bans, smoke-free workplaces, smoking prevalence, cigarette consumption, environmental tobacco smoke, indoor workers, workplace smoking policy
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Tobacco Smoke Pollution, Tobacco Use Disorder, United States, Prevalence, 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