159228
Effect of a smoke-free law on the community smoking rate
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Mary Kay Rayens, PhD
,
College of Nursing and College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Ellen J. Hahn, PhD, RN
,
Tobacco Research and Prevention Program, University of Kentucky College of Nursing and College of Public Health, Lexington, KY
Mei Zhang, MPH, MSN
,
College of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Karen Butler, RN, DNP
,
College of Nursing, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Doug Steinke, BSc(Pharm), PhD
,
Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
The purpose is to evaluate adult smoking rates in Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky, following enactment of a 100% smoke-free (SF) public places ordinance in April 2004. BRFSS data from 2001-05 (N = 3,457; 2,334 pre- and 1,123 post-law) were used to analyze the smoking rates in Fayette County compared to five non-SF Kentucky counties with similar demographics. The weighted smoking rate in Fayette declined from 25.7% (CI: 21.2-30.1) to 17.5% (CI: 11.8-23.1), compared to a stable rate (27.6%) in the control counties from pre- to post-law. With gender, age, education, and month of interview as covariates, the interaction between Time (pre- vs. post-law) and Group (Fayette vs. controls) was significant. Smoking rates in Fayette and the control counties did not differ in the pre-law period, but were significantly different following enactment of the SF law. The degree of decrease from pre- to post-law was significant in Fayette; there was no change in the control counties during the same time period. It is estimated that there were 16,456 fewer smokers in Fayette during the post-law period compared to pre-law. This decline in the number of smokers post-law is estimated to save $21 million (1998 USD) annually in smoking attributable expenditures (CI: 19.9-22.2 million USD). While SF legislation is typically enacted to protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke, this study provides evidence that SF laws may also positively affect the health of both current smokers and those at risk of initiation.
Learning Objectives: 1) The learner will recognize the context of the smoke-free law that was enacted in one community in April 2004.
2) The learner will analyze the effect of a smoke-free law on adult smoking rates compared to residents in similar communities without smoke-free ordinances.
Keywords: Policy/Policy Development, Smoking
Presenting author's disclosure statement:Any relevant financial relationships? No Any institutionally-contracted trials related to this submission?
I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines,
and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed
in my presentation.
|