Employee knowledge and attitudes about a work-site nonsmoking policy: rationale for further smoking restrictions

Article Abstract:

The health hazards of smoking have been known for many years. Within recent years, several studies have reported that inhaling the smoke from a cigarette that someone else is smoking (passive smoking) may be a health hazard. The Environmental Protection Agency considers tobacco smoke to be a human carcinogen (substance capable of causing cancer). For these reasons, smoking has been banned in many public places, such as grocery stores and restaurants. In addition, many companies have adopted no smoking policies that limit smoking to designated areas or prohibit smoking altogether. As of 1989, 31 states had smoking restrictions in public work sites and 13 states had smoking restrictions in private work sites. Two nation-wide surveys reported that the percentage of work sites with nonsmoking policies increased from 36 percent to 54 percent between 1986 and 1987. In 1986, the New England Telephone Company adopted a policy that prohibited smoking in all work areas. Smoking was permitted in specified areas in cafeterias, lounges, and rest rooms. A company-wide survey of about 600 different work sites was performed to evaluate employee knowledge of, and satisfaction with, the no smoking policy. The survey was performed 20 months after the no smoking policy was implemented. The results of the survey indicated that most employees were aware of the smoking restrictions and most employees were satisfied with the no smoking policy. Approximately 26 percent of the current smokers, 16 percent of the former smokers and 13 percent of those who never smoked were 'not satisfied at all' with the no smoking policy. The no smoking policy was judged to be effective in reducing exposure to tobacco smoke in work areas were smoking was prohibited, but not in nonwork areas where smoking was allowed. These results indicate that no smoking policies that are very restrictive or that ban smoking completely may be more successful and easier to implement than policies that are less restrictive. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Employment, Beliefs, opinions and attitudes, Workers, Employee attitudes, Nonsmoking areas

---

The prediction of intention to smoke only in designated work site areas

Article Abstract:

It has been reported that despite the well-known health risks of smoking cigarettes, one-third of the workforce still smokes, and half of all employees are exposed to passive smoke in their immediate work area. A study was conducted to investigate attitudes and psychosocial factors influencing the intention to smoke only in designated areas of the workplace. Seventy-one employees who were cigarette smokers filled out the questionnaire, which assessed such factors as past behavior, intentions, attitudes, and perception of the social norm. The most significant factors affecting intention to restrict smoking to designated areas were: the individual's personal principles; and his or her assessment of how difficult or easy it would be to comply with the restrictive smoking policy. Many smokers expressed personal principles that would keep them from smoking outside of designated areas, but it is concluded that for the remaining smokers who did not express such principles, the policy must be strictly enforced. Smokers who felt it would be easy to comply with the smoking policy also expressed stronger intentions to follow the rules than those who felt it would be difficult to comply. The findings also suggest that if an employer seeks to limit smoking to certain areas, these locations should be easily accessible to encourage compliance. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)

Health aspects, Smokers, Passive smoking

---

Self-reported exercise behavior of employees: a validity study

Article Abstract:

In the last few years, employers have been providing various health promotion programs for their employees. These have usually focused on behavior modification of some health-related activity. In order to evaluate the impact of these programs, a valid method of assessment must be devised. The most frequently used method seems to be the self-administered questionnaire; however most of these questionnaires have not been validated for the employee population. An assessment was made of the validity of different self-reported questions in measuring exercise behavior of 551 employees. The two methods used were a seven-day recall questionnaire, which assessed various levels of activity during a one-week period, and a simpler questionnaire to evaluate exercise habits. The results showed that fit employees reported themselves to have a more active pattern of physical exercise, participated more often in strenuous activities and used up more energy in a typical week than did unfit employees. The authors concluded that the self-report method of measurement of physical exercise was valid and that the single-question simple method was as valid as the more elaborate questionnaire format. This type of data gathering can be used to determine baseline exercise level patterns of employees and then to evaluate the impact of an exercise promotion program at work.

Research, Evaluation, Exercise, Health promotion, Wellness programs, Questionnaires

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The importance of peer effects, cigarette prices and tobacco control policies for youth smoking behavior. Does cigarette price influence adolescent experimentation?
• Abstracts: Information systems and strategic management. Pure versus hybrid: performance implications of Porter's generic strategies
• Abstracts: Adoption and the Right to Inspect Medical Records. State Investigations of Disabled or Impaired Physicians and the Right to Inspect Medical Records
• Abstracts: Developing improved observational methods for evaluating therapeutic effectiveness. Does prophylaxis prevent postdental infective endocarditis? a controlled evaluation of protective efficacy
• Abstracts: Cerebrovascular accident complicating acute myocardial infection: incidence, clinical significance, and short- and long-term mortality rates

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.