Efficacy of tobacco dependence treatment in the context of a "smoke-free grounds" worksite policy: A case study

  • Omowunmi Y.O. Osinubi
  • , Sharmila Sinha
  • , Elisheva Rovner
  • , Marla Perez-Lugo
  • , Neetu J. Jain
  • , Kitaw Demissie
  • , Maurice Goldman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

18 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Smoking restrictions provide opportunities to modify smoking behavior. A large insurance company implemented a smoke-free grounds policy at two of their office complexes in January, 2000. Methods: This cohort study evaluated the impact of the smoke-free grounds policy on abstinence among 128 employees who participated in a tobacco dependence treatment program. Results: The overall quit rate at 6 months was 44.5%. The larger complex showed a trend for higher quit rates compared to the smaller complex (46.5 vs. 28.6%). Post-ban participants had higher quit rates than pre-ban participants (52.4 vs. 43.0%). The probability of abstinence at 6 months follow-up was higher for post-ban compared to pre-ban participants (P = 0.03). Post-ban participants were 80% less likely to relapse than pre-ban participants. Non-quitters decreased their consumption by 6.6 cigarettes/day (39.1 % decrease). Conclusions: A "smoke-free grounds" policy encourages abstinence and may play a significant role in harm reduction among continuing tobacco users.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)180-187
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican journal of industrial medicine
Volume46
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2004

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Keywords

  • Policy
  • Smoke-free grounds
  • Smoke-free worksite
  • Smoking ban
  • Smoking cessation
  • Tobacco abstinence
  • Tobacco dependence treatment
  • Workplace

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy of tobacco dependence treatment in the context of a "smoke-free grounds" worksite policy: A case study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this