Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Amy J. Thompson, Ph D¹, Laura Vernon, BS², Jackie Iwanski, BS³, Desma Girard, BS³, and Aaron W. Bohannon, MPH, CHES⁴. (1) Adult, Health, Counseling and Vocational Education, Kent State University, 316 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, 330-672-0676, athomp4@kent.edu, (2) Community Health Educator Barberton Health District, 571 W. Tuscarawas Ave, Barberton, OH 44203, (3) Adult, Health, Counseling and Vocational Education, Kent State, 316 White Hall, Kent, OH 44242, (4) Family & Community Services, Inc., 143 Gougler Ave., Kent, OH 44017

This study aimed to gain insight into experiences, attitudes, and perceptions of a diverse group of faculty, staff, and students at a large Midwestern University regarding two smoke-free policies being proposed concurrently in the community and on the university campus. Twelve focus groups were conducted (n=83). Participants either attended or worked at the university and were selected using criterion-purposive sampling. Focus group questions had theoretical grounding in the Health Belief Model. A thorough content review of all collected data was conducted, themes identified and results summarized. Participants reported exposure to second hand smoke occurred mostly in bars, restaurants, and building entryways. Although all groups were concerned about second hand smoke, few respondents actually took measures to avoid exposure. Most were supportive of public places being smoke free but many had concerns with how smoke-free policies would be enforced. Participants misperceived community smoking rates to range between 50-80%. Many focus group participants expressed concern that if smokers stopped patronizing local establishments that there would be a negative economic impact. Many participants indicated that they would be more likely to go to smoke- free establishments if a tobacco control policy were passed but less than one third could identify local smoke-free establishments.There was substantial support of smoke-free policies in this university community. Future efforts to pass smoking ordinances in university towns and cities could include strategies such as conducting educational campaigns on the impact of smoking policies in other communities, publicizing existing establishments that are smoke-free, and addressing misperceived norms.

Learning Objectives:

• 1. Discuss the importance of using qualitative methods to identify support for various tobacco control policies.
• 2. Identify perceived benefits of enacting various tobacco control policies.
• 3. Discuss common misconceptions of clean indoor air policies and perceived barriers for policy enactment.
• 4. Differentiate support for various clean indoor air policies.

Keywords: Tobacco Policy, Advocacy

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Not Answered