Impact of smoke-free housing policy lease exemptions on compliance, enforcement and smoking behavior: A qualitative study

Assessing the choice of smoke-free policies for multiunit housing and its associated determinants in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the desire for smoke-free housing, determine the choice of smoke-free policies for multiunit housing (MUH), and identify the factors associated with policy choice among MUH residents in Bangladesh.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study from April to November 2019 using a semi-structured survey questionnaire.

SETTING

This study was conducted in seven divisional cities of Bangladesh: Dhaka, Chattogram, Rajshahi, Khulna, Sylhet, Barishal, and Rangpur.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 616 adult individuals living in MUH for at least 2 years participated in the study.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of the choice of smoke-free policies for MUH.

RESULTS

Overall, 94.8% of the respondents wanted smoke-free housing. Among those who wanted smoke-free housing, 44.9% preferred a smoke-free building policy, 28.3% preferred a smoke-free common area policy, 20.2% favoured a smoke-free unit policy, and 6.7% did not know what policy they should choose. Three factors were found to be significantly associated with the choice of a smoke-free building policy: staying at home for more than 12 hours (adjusted OR (aOR): 2.6; 95% CI 1.035 to 6.493), being a non-smoker (aOR: 3.2; 95% CI 1.317 to 7.582), and having at least one family member who smoked (aOR: 3.0; 95% CI 1.058 to 8.422). Results also showed that residents having at least one child under 15 in the family (aOR: 0.3; 95% CI 0.152 to 0.778) were less likely to choose a smoke-free common area policy and that women (aOR: 3.7; 95% CI 1.024 to 13.188) were more likely to choose a smoke-free unit policy.

CONCLUSIONS

MUH residents in urban Bangladesh highly demanded smoke-free housing. Most residents favoured a smoke-free building policy for MUH. Those who stayed at home for a longer time, were non-smokers, and had smoking family members were more likely to choose this policy.

Systems and policies to reduce secondhand smoke in multiunit housing in Singapore: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Multiunit housing residents are often exposed to neighbours' secondhand smoke (SHS). Little is known on the current systems available to protect residents in places not covered by a residential smoking ban, or what constitutes an appropriate policy approach. This study explores relevant systems and policies in Singapore, a densely populated city-state where the vast majority live in multiunit housing and discussions on regulating smoking in homes are ongoing.

METHODS

In-depth interviews with 18 key informants involved in thought leadership, advocacy, policy or handling SHS complaints, and 14 smokers and 16 non-smokers exposed to SHS at home.

RESULTS

The current system to address neighbours' SHS comprises three steps: moral suasion, mediation and legal dispute. Moral suasion and mediation are often ineffective as they depend on smokers to willingly restrict their smoking habits. Legal dispute can yield a court order to stop smoking inside the home, but the process places a high evidence burden on complainants. While setting up designated smoking points or running social responsibility campaigns may help to create no-smoking norms, more intractable cases will likely require regulation, a polarising approach which raises concerns about privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Without regulations to limit SHS in multiunit housing, current systems are limited in their enforceability as they treat SHS as a neighbourly nuisance rather than a public health threat.

Secondhand smoke exposure and associated factors among city residents living in multiunit housing in Bangladesh

BACKGROUND

Secondhand smoke (SHS) poses a high health risk to those living in multiunit housing (MUH) since it can easily spread from unit to unit and throughout the building's communal areas. MUH residents in Bangladesh are particularly vulnerable to SHS due to the absence of smoking restrictions within a housing complex. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of SHS exposure and its associated factors among MUH residents living in seven divisional cities of Bangladesh- Dhaka, Chattogram, Rajshahi, Khulna, Sylhet, Barishal, and Rangpur.

METHODS

From April 2019 to November 2019, a cross-sectional survey was conducted with 616 MUH residents aged 18 or older who had been residing in MUH for at least two years in the seven divisional cities of Bangladesh. A multivariable logistic regression model was performed to determine the associated factors of SHS exposure.

RESULTS

In MUH complexes, more than half (54.9%) of the 616 respondents were exposed to SHS. The key factors positively associated with SHS exposure were females (aOR: 1.8, 95% CI:1.236-2.681), residents with a low monthly family income (aOR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.162-3.220), those whose family members smoked (aOR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.537-3.746), and Dhaka city residents (aOR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.013-3.440).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed a high prevalence of SHS exposure among Bangladeshi MUH residents. Therefore, a smoking ban is needed in and around MUH complexes to protect non-smoking residents from SHS exposure.

Residential secondhand smoke in a densely populated urban setting: a qualitative exploration of psychosocial impacts, views and experiences

Background

People remain exposed to secondhand smoke, a serious health hazard, inside their home as households face challenges in setting no-smoking rules or are exposed to secondhand smoke drifting in from neighbouring homes. This study explores the psychosocial impacts, views, and experiences with residential secondhand smoke in a densely populated urban setting. 

Methods

In-depth online or face to face interviews with 18 key informants who had been involved in public discourse, policy, advocacy or handling complaints related to residential secondhand smoke, 14 smokers, and 16 non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke inside their home. All participants were residents of Singapore, a densely populated, multi-ethnic city-state. Interview transcripts were coded in NVivo using a deductive and inductive coding process.

Findings

Secondhand smoke has wide-reaching impacts on physical and psychosocial wellbeing, even if smokers tried to minimise secondhand smoke. Feelings of anxiety and stress are generally tied to feeling discomfort in one’s personal space, a perceived lack of control over the situation, resentment towards smokers, and concerns over the health effects. Family, community, and cultural dynamics add complexities to tackling the issue, especially in patriarchal households. Secondhand smoke exposure from neighbours is considered a widespread issue, exacerbated by structural factors such as building layout and the COVID-19 pandemic. Resolving the issue amicably is considered challenging due to the absence of regulations and a reluctance to stir up conflict with neighbours. While smokers took measures to reduce secondhand smoke, these were described as ineffective by other participants. Smokers appeared to have contrasting views from other participants on what it means to smoke in a socially responsible manner.

Conclusion

Given the wide-reaching psychosocial impacts of residential secondhand smoke, there is a case for stronger interventions, especially in densely populated urban settings where it is more difficult to avoid.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13561-7.

Guest Support for Outdoor Smoke-Free Policies within a Homeless Shelter

Roughly 70-80% of adults experiencing homelessness smoke cigarettes. Smoke-free living/workplace policies are an empirically-supported tobacco control intervention. However, homeless shelters may be reluctant to implement smoke-free policies due to fears of it discouraging current/potential shelter guests from taking refuge there. The current study was meant to characterize guest support for on-property smoke-free policies within a homeless shelter with an extant indoor tobacco use ban amongst never smokers, former smokers, and current smokers to provide data on this point. Participants comprised a convenience sample of adult guests of a homeless shelter in Texas (N = 394, 28.2% women; 10.2% former; and 75.9% current smokers). Participant sociodemographics, smoking status, behavioral health diagnoses, and support for two versions of an on-property outdoor courtyard smoke-free policy (one partial, one complete) were assessed. Data were collected in two waves in a repeated cross-sectional design. Overall, 64.0% of participants supported a partial, and 32.0% a full smoking ban. Logistic regressions, controlling for wave of data collection, age, sex, and any additional significant predictors from a semi-adjusted model, examined associations between participant characteristics and policy support. Older participants (OR = 1.024, CI_0.95 = 1.005-1.044), non-veterans (OR = 2.523, CI_0.95 = 1.156-5.506), former smokers (OR = 2.730, CI_0.95 = 1.191-6.258), and those without severe mental illness (OR = 1.731, CI_0.95 = 1.061-2.824) had significantly greater odds of supporting a partial smoking ban. Relative to current smokers, never smokers (OR = 3.902, CI_0.95 = 2.133-7.137) and former smokers (OR = 8.257, CI_0.95 = 3.951-17.258) had significantly greater odds of supporting a complete smoking ban. The implementation of smoke-free living/workplace policies in homeless shelters may enjoy more support from guests-specifically, non-smokers-than anticipated by shelter administrators. Aside from reducing ambient smoke exposure for never and former smokers, these policies can help to reduce ubiquitous smoking cues for those who may want to quit, are undergoing a quit attempt, or are trying to maintain abstinence. Interventionists might partner with shelter guests, particularly smokers, to inform the roll-out of such policies for maximal acceptance and adoption.

Mobility challenges and experiences for students with disabilities in Tanzania universities: dealing with a social inclusion nightmare in property management

Purpose

Despite the presence of people with disabilities in higher learning institutions, facilities provided for both accommodation and classrooms prove to be ineffective in fulfilling their expectations. However, the existing measures have tended to be rigid and unable to incorporate the ever evolving user experiences from constantly enrolling students in public campus buildings. The paper is premised on the notion of social inclusivity of the built environment in public universities through user experiences, measured through a qualitative lens.

Design/methodology/approach

The study was qualitative and deployed a case study strategy. Respondents were purposively identified and subjected to in-depth interviews, key informant interviews and focused group discussions. The full realisation of the sample frames was determined by data saturation. Data from responses was thereafter sorted, coded and categorised through a systematic thematic analysis. Some responses reactions were reported verbatim. The anonymity of the respondents was observed though through the use of pseudonyms.

Findings

This paper has indicated respondents' experiences regarding social inclusivity of the institutional built environment and thematically categorised them in six areas: complaints mechanism and feedback, pre- and post-enrolment experiences, namely; complaints mechanism and feedback, pre- and post-enrolment experiences and social support as a property management policy. Others include, representation in university decision-making organs, perceptions regarding disability and its needs and distribution of facilities and site works. It recommends that property management practices should be re-oriented to ensure the sustainability of learning facilities for the disabled, taking into consideration the ever-evolving needs and preferences of PWD user students with disabilities.

Originality/value

Linking the social and human rights models to actual experiences of property occupiers is unique. The author believes that it will, in addition to the existing models and strategies, improve on a better achievement of inclusivity of building use used by all categories of members of the society.

Implementing the Federal Smoke-Free Public Housing Policy in New York City: Understanding Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Policy Impact

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.

Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding rural tobacco use disparities

Traditional tobacco product (cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) and polytobacco use rates are significantly higher among rural adolescents and adults compared to their nonrural counterparts. Such disparities are due to several factors that promote tobacco use initiation and continuation, including individual-level psychopharmacological factors and structural-level factors such as fewer tobacco control efforts (e.g., fewer smoke-free policies and lower tobacco excise taxes), targeted tobacco marketing, less access to health-relevant resources, and more positive cultural norms surrounding tobacco use in rural communities. In this review, we use cumulative disadvantage theory as a framework for understanding how psychopharmacological and structural-level factors serve as drivers of tobacco use in rural areas. We start by describing how structural-level differences between rural-nonrural communities impact psychopharmacological influences and, when available, how these factors influence tobacco use. We conclude by discussing the interplay between factors, providing suggestions for ways to assess our application of cumulative disadvantage theory empirically and making recommendations for research and policy implementation in rural areas. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Self-Reported Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Support for Complete Smoking Bans in Multiunit Housing Among Smokers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom

Introduction

Involuntary exposure to secondhand smoke most frequently occurs at home, which is problematic for residents of multiunit housing (MUH). The primary objective of this study was to estimate the extent of secondhand smoke incursions into the homes of MUH smokers who banned smoking in their homes but lived in buildings where smoking is allowed.

Methods

We used data from Wave 9 of the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. We estimated 1) the prevalence of complete smoking bans among smokers living in single-family homes vs MUH in the United States (n = 3,208), Canada (n = 1,592), and the United Kingdom (n = 1,403) from 2013 to 2015; 2) the extent of secondhand smoke incursions into the homes of MUH smokers who banned smoking in their units but lived in buildings that allow smoking; and 3) MUH smokers’ preferences for complete smoking bans in MUH. Weighted multivariable logistic regression estimated the country-specific adjusted prevalence of all outcomes.

Results

Overall, 53.0% of smokers living in single-family homes completely banned smoking in their homes, compared with 44.8% of smokers in MUH. Across all 3 countries, only 27.8% of MUH smokers reported that smoking was completely prohibited in their building. A similar percentage of MUH smokers who banned smoking in their home but lived in buildings allowing smoking reported a secondhand smoke incursion into their home in the United States (29.9%; 95% CI, 20.4%–41.5%), Canada (38.4%; 95% CI, 26.7%–51.6%), and the United Kingdom (24.7%; 95% CI, 15.7%–36.7%). Across all 3 countries, 36.1% (95% CI, 33.4%–38.9%) of smokers in MUH reported they preferred a complete smoking ban in all building areas.

Conclusion

A need remains to educate MUH operators and residents about the benefits of comprehensive smoke-free policies.

The HUD smoke-free rule: Perceptions of residents post-implementation

•

The new HUD no smoking policy has had a favorable impact on smokers.

•

The new HUD no smoking policy has reduced second hand smoke exposure.

•

There remain needs for education, policy enforcement and on-site cessation help.

In July 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) implemented a new Public health Agency rule prohibiting the use of tobacco in and within 25 feet of HUD housing. A convenience sample of 574 residents living in Milwaukee, Wisconsin multi-unit HUD complexes completed a survey from May through July 2019, designed to assess their perceptions of the new policy and its impact. Knowledge of the policy was strong, although continued educational efforts are needed. Attitudes about the policy were generally positive, although smokers held more negative attitudes than non-smokers. Some residents desired more and fairer policy enforcement. Most residents reported that smoke incursions were reduced post policy compared to pre policy, although such incursions still occurred. The policy has had a favorable health impact on smokers; over 80% made at least one positive change in their smoking, including 6.4% who said the policy motivated them to quit. There was no evidence that residents with mobility challenges were differentially affected by the policy. Overall, the HUD smoke-free policy was well received, reduced self-reported exposure to smoke and led most smokers to make positive changes in their smoking. Additional education on the policy, improved enforcement, and cessation services are needed.

Smoking in apartment buildings - Spatiality, meanings and understandings

Increased higher density urban living may exacerbate exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Using a social practices lens, this research explored the locations, experiences and governance of smoking in apartment buildings in Melbourne, Australia, through semi-structured interviews in high-rise buildings ranging from subsidised housing to luxury apartments. Tacit rules on acceptable locations, building rules and smoke alarms in public areas consigned smoking to balconies and building entrances. The perceived health threat from second hand smoke and mental stress due to invasion of olfactory and visual privacy undermined the full enjoyment of the home environment. Interventions may benefit from targeting the link between smoking and balconies.

Prevalence of Involuntary Environmental Cannabis and Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Multi-Unit Housing

No research has examined the prevalence of involuntary cannabis exposure in the home within the context of multi-unit housing (MUH). The 2017 cycle of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Monitor population RDD survey included measures of environmental cannabis smoke (ECS) and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) for Ontario, Canada. These ECS measures were defined for those who did not live in a detached dwelling self-reporting noticing any tobacco or cannabis smoke enter the home from a neighboring unit or from outside the building at least once in the past 6 months. Overall, 6.6% (95% CI: 4.5-9.5%) and 7.5% (9% CI: 5.4-10.4%) of the population reported being exposed to ETS and ECS in MUH respectively. Individuals exposed to ECS were single, had used cannabis in the past 12 months, and had lower household incomes. The prevalence of involuntary exposure to cannabis smoke is similar to exposure to tobacco smoke. Exposure correlates were primarily associated with characteristics of those who lived in MUH who tend to be members of more vulnerable populations.

A qualitative study of the process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of smoke-free policies in privately-owned affordable housing

Background

Household smoke-free home rules cannot fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke (SHS) if they live in multi-unit housing (MUH). Instead, property-level smoke-free policies are needed to prevent SHS incursion into apartment units and to keep common areas smoke-free. Smoke-free policies are usually at the discretion of property management companies and owners within the context of market-rate and privately-owned affordable housing in the U.S.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews on the policy development, implementation and enforcement experiences of 21 different privately-owned affordable housing management companies were conducted with representatives from properties in North Carolina and Georgia who had established smoke-free policies before 2016.

Results

The decision to adopt was typically made by corporate leadership, board members, owners or property managers, with relatively little resident input. Policy details were influenced by property layout, perceptions of how best to facilitate compliance and enforcement, and cost of creating a designated smoking area. Policies were implemented through inclusion in leases, lease addenda or house rules with 6 months’ notice most common. Participants thought having a written policy, the norms and culture of the housing community, public norms for smoke-free environments, and resident awareness of the rules and their consequences, aided with compliance. Violations were identified through routine inspections of units and resident reporting. Resident denial and efforts to hide smoking were shared as challenges to enforcement, along with a perception that concrete evidence would be needed in eviction court and that simply the smell of SHS was insufficient evidence of violation. Over half had terminated leases or evicted residents due to violations of the smoke-free policy. The most common benefits cited were reduced turnover cost and time, and lower vacancy rates.

Conclusions

Understanding the smoke-free policy process in privately-owned affordable housing can help practitioners encourage policies within subsidized housing contexts. The study identified salient benefits (e.g., reduced cost, time, and vacancies) that can be highlighted when encouraging MUH partners to adopt policies. Additionally, study findings provide guidance on what to consider when designing smoke-free policies (e.g., layout, costs), and provide insights into how to enhance compliance (e.g., resident awareness) and manage enforcement (e.g., routine inspections).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-7404-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Behavioral changes in smokers after implementation of anti-smoking legislation in ArgentinaMudança de comportamento nos fumantes após a implementação da legislação antifumo na Argentina]

OBJECTIVE

Identify factors related to behavioral changes in smokers over 18 years of age following implementation of provincial policies for 100% smoke-free spaces in Argentina.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analytical study was conducted. The multilevel technique was used with data from different hierarchies. Secondary data sources were used: National Risk Factor Surveys 2005, 2009, and 2013.

RESULTS

The individual analysis of explanatory variables revealed that residents of provinces that do not have smoke-free legislation were 40% less likely to consider quitting smoking than people who live in provinces with such legislation. In provinces without smoke-free spaces, males over 65 years old are even less likely to think about quitting smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that legislation based on Article 8 of the Framework Convention would be effective in promoting tobacco cessation in Argentina.