Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing Policy: Caretakers' Perspectives on Economic and Personal Impacts.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wilbur RE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4515710 | biostudies-other | 2015 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThe 12-month impact of federally mandated smoke-free housing (SFH) policy adoption (July 2018) was assessed using two markers of ambient secondhand smoke (SHS): airborne nicotine and particulate matter at the 2.5-micrometer threshold (PM2.5).MethodsWe measured markers of SHS in Norfolk, VA from December 2017 to December 2018 in six federally subsidized multi-unit public housing buildings. Multi-level regression was used to model the following comparisons: (1) the month immediately before SFH implementation versus the month immediately after, and (2) December 2017 versus December 2018.ResultsThere was a 27% reduction in indoor PM2.5 and a 32% reduction in airborne nicotine in the first month after SFH adoption, compared to the month prior to adoption. However, there was a 33% increase in PM2.5 and a 25% increase in airborne nicotine after 12 months.ConclusionsUS Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-mandated SFH can reduce SHS in multi-unit housing. However, SFH could also plausibly increase indoor smoking. Policy approaches adopted by individual properties or housing authorities-for example, property-wide bans versus allowing designated smoking areas-could be driving this potential unintended consequence.ImplicationsSuccessful implementation of SFH by public housing authorities in response to the HUD rule requires ongoing attention to implementation strategies. In this sense, SFH likely differs from other policies that might be seen as less intrusive. Long-term success of SFH will depend on careful policy implementation, including plans to educate and support housing authority staff, inform and engage residents, and build effective partnerships with community agencies.
| S-EPMC7899270 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSecondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is associated with many health conditions in children and adults. Millions of individuals in the US are currently exposed to SHS in their homes.ObjectiveTo investigate whether a federal ban on smoking in public housing settings was associated with a decrease in indoor SHS levels in New York City public housing developments 12 months after the policy's implementation.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study tracked indoor air quality longitudinally from April 2018 to September 2019 and used difference-in-differences analysis to examine SHS exposure before vs after implementation of the 2018 federal smoke-free housing (SFH) policy in 10 New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) buildings vs 11 matched low-income buildings not subject to the SFH policy (ie, Section 8 buildings).ExposuresFederal SFH policy implementation, beginning July 30, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresComparison of nicotine concentration levels from passive, bisulfate-coated filters before vs 12 months after implementation of the federal SFH policy. Secondary outcomes included changes in particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter, measured with low-cost particle monitors, and counts of cigarette butts in common areas.ResultsAir quality was measured repeatedly in a total of 153 NYCHA and 110 Section 8 nonsmoking households as well as in 91 stairwells and hallways. Before the SFH policy implementation, air nicotine was detectable in 19 of 20 stairwells (95.0%) in NYCHA buildings and 15 of 19 stairwells (78.9%) in Section 8 buildings (P = .19) and in 17 of 19 hallways (89.5%) in NYCHA buildings and 14 of 23 hallways (60.9%) in Section 8 buildings (P = .004). Nicotine was detected less frequently inside nonsmoking apartments overall (26 of 263 [9.9%]) but more frequently in NYCHA apartments (20 of 153 [13.1%]) than in Section 8 apartments (6 of 110 [5.5%]) (P = .04). One year after policy implementation, there was no differential change over time in nicotine concentrations measured in stairwells (DID, 0.03 μg/m3; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.06 μg/m3) or inside nonsmoking households (DID, -0.04 μg/m3; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.15 μg/m3). Larger decreases in nicotine concentration were found in NYCHA hallways than in Section 8 hallways (DID, -0.43 μg/m3; 95% CI, -1.26 to 0.40 μg/m3).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that there was no differential change in SHS in NYCHA buildings 12 months after SFH policy implementation. Additional support may be needed to ensure adherence to SFH policies.
| S-EPMC7645700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development required public housing authorities to implement a smoke-free housing (SFH) policy that included individual apartments. We analyzed the policy implementation process in the New York City Public Housing Authority (NYCHA). From June-November 2019, we conducted 9 focus groups with 64 NYCHA residents (smokers and nonsmokers), 8 key informant interviews with NYCHA staff and resident association leaders, and repeated surveys with a cohort of 130 nonsmoking households pre- and 12-month post policy. One year post policy implementation, participants reported widespread smoking violations and multi-level factors impeding policy implementation. These included the shared belief among residents and staff that the policy overreached by "telling people what to do in their own apartments". This hindered compliance and enforcement efforts. Inconsistent enforcement of illegal marijuana use, staff smoking violations, and a lack of accountability for other pressing housing issues created the perception that smokers were being unfairly targeted, as did the lack of smoking cessation resources. Resident support for the policy remained unchanged but satisfaction with enforcement declined (60.1% vs. 48.8%, p = 0.047). We identified multilevel contextual factors that are influencing SFH policy implementation. Findings can inform the design of strategies to optimize policy implementation.
| S-EPMC8656672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn 2012, the Boston Housing Authority (BHA) in Massachusetts implemented a smoke-free policy prohibiting smoking within its residences. We sought to characterize BHA resident experiences before and after the smoke-free policy implementation, and compare them to that of nearby residents of the Cambridge Housing Authority, which had no such policy.MethodsWe recruited a convenience sample of nonsmoking residents from the BHA and Cambridge Housing Authority. We measured residents' awareness and support of their local smoking policies before and 9-12 months after the BHA's policy implementation, as well as BHA respondents' attitudes towards the smoke-free policy. We assessed tobacco smoke exposure via saliva cotinine, airborne apartment nicotine, and self-reported number of days smelling smoke in the home. We evaluated predictors of general satisfaction at follow-up using linear regression.ResultsAt follow-up, 91% of BHA respondents knew that smoking was not allowed in apartments and 82% were supportive of such a policy in their building. BHA residents believed enforcement of the smoke-free policy was low. Fifty-one percent of BHA respondents indicated that other residents "never" or "rarely" followed the new smoke-free rule and 41% of respondents were dissatisfied with policy enforcement. Dissatisfaction with enforcement was the strongest predictor of general housing satisfaction, while objective and self-reported measures of tobacco smoke exposure were not predictive of satisfaction. At follow-up, 24% of BHA participants had complained to someone in charge about policy violations.ConclusionsResident support for smoke-free policies is high. However, lack of enforcement of smoke-free policies may cause frustration and resentment among residents, potentially leading to a decrease in housing satisfaction.ImplicationsSmoke-free housing laws are becoming increasingly prevalent, yet little is known about satisfaction and compliance with such policies post-implementation. We evaluated nonsmoking residents' attitudes about smoke-free rules and their satisfaction with enforcement 1 year after the BHA implemented its comprehensive smoke-free policy. We found that while residents were supportive of the policy, they believed enforcement was low, a perception that was associated with a drop in housing satisfaction. Our findings point to a desire for smoke-free housing among public housing residents, and the importance of establishing systems and guidelines to help landlords monitor and enforce these policies effectively.
| S-EPMC6407845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Smoke-free housing policy in multi-unit housing has emerged as a promising tobacco control initiative, yet full compliance remains elusive and is a critical impediment to policy effectiveness. There is a gap in existing research on potential factors preventing optimal smoke-free policy adoption and corresponding solutions. Using qualitative and quantitative data from resident surveys (N?=?115) as well as key informant interviews, a focus group, and observational fieldwork, this study 1) assesses smoking behaviors and experience with secondhand smoke in buildings after adoption of a smoke-free policy; 2) examines resident and property management perceptions of the policy; and 3) identifies socioecological factors that influence the policy's effectiveness in affordable housing settings in New York City. Findings indicate that residents view smoking regulations within the context of broader relationships with the housing provider and other residents. We argue that these "social contracts" strongly influence the effectiveness of smoke-free housing policies and must be acknowledged to maximize compliance.
| S-EPMC7146084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHigh levels of particulate pollution due to secondhand smoke (SHS) have previously been recorded in English prisons. As part of an evaluation to ascertain whether a new comprehensive smoke-free policy introduced in the first four prisons in England was successfully implemented, this study compares indoor air quality on prison wing landing locations three months before and three months after going smoke-free.DesignAn indoor air quality monitoring study, comparing SHS levels before and after a comprehensive smoke-free prison policy.SettingThe first four prisons in England to implement a comprehensive smoke-free policy.Primary and secondary measuresWe compared concentrations of airborne particulate matter <2.5 microns in diameter (PM₂.₅), as a marker for SHS, on wing landing locations three months before and three months after the smoke-free policy was implemented. Static battery operated aerosol monitors were used to sample concentrations of PM₂.₅ on wing landings.ResultsAfter discarding data from monitors that had been tampered with we were able to analyse paired data across four prisons from 74 locations, across 29 wing landing locations, for an average sampling time of five hours and eight minutes. When comparing samples taken three months before with the paired samples taken three months after policy implementation (paired for prison, day of the week, time of day, wing location and position of monitor), there was a 66% reduction in mean PM₂.₅ concentrations across the four prisons sampled, from 39 to 13 µg/m³ (difference 26 µg/m³, 95% CI 25 to 26 µg/m³).ConclusionPrison smoke-free policies achieve significant improvements in indoor air quality. A national smoke-free policy would therefore be an effective means of protecting prisoners and staff from harm due to SHS exposure in the prison environment.
| S-EPMC6575713 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSmoke-free homes (SFHs), the voluntary adoption of home smoking restrictions, are associated with reduced secondhand smoke exposure. However, SFHs are uncommon in permanent supportive housing (PSH) for formerly homeless adults, who have fivefold higher smoking rates than the general population. We pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area.Aims and methodsWe pilot-tested a brief intervention to increase voluntary adoption of SFHs among PSH residents in the San Francisco Bay Area. Rest of the methods, PSH residents (n = 100) and staff (n = 62) from 15 PSH sites participated in the intervention between October 2017 and February 2018. Research staff provided counseling to PSH residents on how to adopt an SFH and trained PSH staff on how to counsel residents on smoking cessation. The primary outcome was self-reported voluntary adoption of an SFH for ?90 days, and the secondary outcome was carbon monoxide-verified PPA at 6-month follow-up. PSH staff completed the Smoking Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices survey at baseline and 3-month follow-up.ResultsAt 6 months, 31.3% of PSH residents had adopted an SFH (vs. 13.0% at baseline) and 16.9% reported carbon monoxide-verified PPA. A positive attitude toward an SFH policy was associated with increased odds of SFH adoption (adjusted odds ratio = 8.68, 95% confidence interval: 2.42, 31.17). Voluntary SFH adoption was associated with increased PPA (adjusted odds ratio = 26.27, 95% confidence interval: 3.43, 201.30). PSH staff reported improved attitudes toward and self-efficacy in delivering cessation care, and decreased barriers to discussing smoking cessation among PSH residents between baseline and 3-month follow-up.ConclusionsIn this single-arm study, a brief intervention increased SFH adoption and PPA among PSH residents.ImplicationsTo date, few interventions have addressed SFHs and their association with tobacco use among PSH residents. A "ground-up" approach that relies on buy-in from residents and that promotes voluntary SFHs is an innovative way to increase smoke-free living environments in PSH. This approach could pave a pathway for smoke-free policy implementation in these sites. PSH can play a role in reducing the burden of tobacco use by empowering its residents to adopt voluntary SFHs, which could increase smoking cessation among residents.
| S-EPMC7789947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTobacco companies consistently work to prevent and undermine smoke-free laws. The tobacco industry and its allies have funded hospitality associations and other third parties to oppose smoke-free laws, argue that smoke-free laws will economically damage hospitality venues, promote ventilation and voluntary smoker 'accommodation' as an alternative to smoke-free laws, and to challenge smoke-free laws in court. In 2008, the Netherlands extended its smoke-free law to hospitality venues.MethodsWe triangulated news articles, government documents, scientific papers, statistical reports and interviews to construct this case study.ResultsDespite widespread public support for smoke-free hospitality venues, opponents successfully represented these laws as unpopular and damaging to small bars. These challenges and related smokers' rights activities resulted in non-compliance among all bars and reinstating an exemption for small, owner-run venues. This policy reversal was the result of a weak implementing media campaign (which failed to present the law as protecting nonsmokers), smoking room exemptions and reactive (vs. proactive) measures by the Ministry of Health and civil society.ConclusionThe policy failure in the Netherlands is the result of poor implementation efforts and the failure to anticipate and deal with opposition to the law. When implementing smoke-free laws it is important to anticipate opposition, used the media to target non-smokers to reinforce public support, and actively enforce the law.
| S-EPMC3553585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEconomic evaluation of public policies has been advocated but rarely performed. Studies from a systematic review of the health impacts of housing improvement included data on costs and some economic analysis. Examination of these data provides an opportunity to explore the difficulties and the potential for economic evaluation of housing.MethodsData were extracted from all studies included in the systematic review of housing improvement which had reported costs and economic analysis (n=29/45). The reported data were assessed for their suitability to economic evaluation. Where an economic analysis was reported the analysis was described according to pre-set definitions of various types of economic analysis used in the field of health economics.Results25 studies reported cost data on the intervention and/or benefits to the recipients. Of these, 11 studies reported data which was considered amenable to economic evaluation. A further four studies reported conducting an economic evaluation. Three of these studies presented a hybrid 'balance sheet' approach and indicated a net economic benefit associated with the intervention. One cost-effectiveness evaluation was identified but the data were unclearly reported; the cost-effectiveness plane suggested that the intervention was more costly and less effective than the status quo.ConclusionsFuture studies planning an economic evaluation need to (i) make best use of available data and (ii) ensure that all relevant data are collected. To facilitate this, economic evaluations should be planned alongside the intervention with input from health economists from the outset of the study. When undertaken appropriately, economic evaluation provides the potential to make significant contributions to housing policy.
| S-EPMC3786632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Deciding which climate policies to enact, and where and when to enact them, requires weighing their costs against the expected benefits. A key challenge in climate policy is how to value health impacts, which are likely to be large and varied, considering that they will accrue over long time horizons (centuries), will occur throughout the world, and will be distributed unevenly within countries depending in part on socioeconomic status. These features raise a number of important economic and ethical issues including how to value human life in different countries at different levels of development, how to value future people, and how much priority to give the poor and disadvantaged. In this article we review each of these issues, describe different approaches for addressing them in quantitative climate policy analysis, and show how their treatment can dramatically change what should be done about climate change. Finally, we use the social cost of carbon, which reflects the cost of adding carbon emissions to the atmosphere, as an example of how analysis of climate impacts is sensitive to ethical assumptions. We consider $20 a reasonable lower bound for the social cost of carbon, but we show that a much higher value is warranted given a strong concern for equity within and across generations.
| S-EPMC7891186 | biostudies-literature