RESEARCH PAPER
Smoking zones versus smoke-free zones on Canadian post-secondary campuses: Which zone is more effective, adhered to and preferred?
 
More details
Hide details
1
POP PA Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
2
Exercise and Health Psychology Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada
3
Fitness and Health Promotion Program, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health, Community Studies & Public Safety, Fanshawe College, London, Canada
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Matthew J. Fagan*   

POP PA Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
Publish date: 2019-04-01
Submission date: 2018-08-29
Final revision date: 2019-03-01
Acceptance date: 2019-03-15
 
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2019;5(April):13
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
This study aims to determine if smokers at post-secondary campuses are more likely to adhere to smoke-free zones (areas where smoking is not permitted) or smoking zones (areas where smoking is permitted) based on preference and effectiveness.

Methods:
A self-reported survey was developed and administered at two postsecondary institutions; Western University (smoke-free zones) and Fanshawe College (smoking zones). Smokers were asked how often they use these zones, which zone is preferred and which zone they think is more effective. A chisquared analysis was performed to determine if there were differences in the frequency of responses.

Results:
A total of 239 surveys were collected, 119 from Western and 120 from Fanshawe. Of these, 87% of respondents at Fanshawe were aware of where they could smoke on campus, and 67% reported that they mostly or always used these spaces. At Western, significantly fewer respondents knew where to smoke (57%), and only 30% reported mostly or always using appropriate zones (p<0.05). More participants at Fanshawe indicated that they had been told by someone in authority where they could smoke (36%) compared to Western (19%, p<0.05). At Fanshawe, 63% of respondents stated that smoking zones mostly or always effectively indicated where it was appropriate to smoke on campus compared to only 18% at Western (p<0.05). Both groups indicated they preferred the zone they currently had. Finally, more participants from Fanshawe intend to quit smoking within 6 months (61% from Fanshawe vs 49% from Western, p<0.05).

Conclusions:
Smoking zones on post-secondary campuses may be more effective and adhered to by smokers than smoke-free zones.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
There was no source of funding for this research.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
*Contributed equally
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
 
REFERENCES (23)
1.
World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic. Vol 5.; 2013. doi:10.1002/aehe.3640230702.
 
2.
Government of Canada. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey. Smoking in Canada: an overview. https://www.canada.ca/en/healt.... Published 2012. Accessed July 2, 2018.
 
3.
Backinger CL, Fagan P, Matthews E, Grana R. Adolescent and young adult tobacco prevention and cessation: current status and future directions. Tob Control. 2003;12 Suppl 4:IV46-V53. doi:10.1136/tc.12.suppl.
 
4.
Berger J. The Price of Knowledge. In: Berger J, Motte A, Parkin A, eds. The Price of Knowledge. 4th ed. Montreal: The Canada illlennium Scholarship Foundations; 2009.
 
5.
Lemstra M, Neudorf C, Opondo J. Implications of a public smoking ban. Can J Public Heal Can Sante’e Publique. 2008;99(1):62-65.
 
6.
McMaster University. Tobacco & Smoke Free University Policy.; 2017. https://www.mcmaster.ca/policy... & Smoke Free University Policy.pdf. Accessed August 29, 2018.
 
7.
Procter-Scherdtel A, Collins D. Smoking restrictions on campus: Changes and challenges at three Canadian universities, 1970-2010. Heal Soc Care Community. 2013;21(1):104-112. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2012.01094.x.
 
8.
Canadian Cancer Society. University and College 100% Smoke-Free Campuses in Canada: National Status Report.; 2018. http://www.cancer.ca/~/media/c... media/Media releases/2018/University-college-100-percent-smoke-free-campus-national-report-2018-09-14.pdf?la=en. Accessed August 29, 2018.
 
9.
Western University. Let’s Clear the Air Here. https://www.uwo.ca/health/livi.... Published 2018. Accessed August 29, 2018.
 
10.
Biener L, Abrams DB, Follick MJ, Dean L. A comparative evaluation of a restrictive smoking policy in a general hospital. Am J Public Health. 1989;79(2):192-195. doi:10.2105/AJPH.79.2.192.
 
11.
Nagle AL, Schofield MJ, Redman S. Smoking on hospital grounds and the impact of outdoor smoke-free zones. Tobacco Control. 1996;5:199-204. doi:10.1136/tc.5.3.199
 
12.
Fanshawe College F. College Policy Manual: C206, ALCOHOL, DRUGS, ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES TOBACCO PRODUCTS; 2016.
 
13.
Fitzgeorge L, Tritter A, Fagan MJ, Nagpal TS, Prapavessis H. Informing population-specific smoking policy development for college campuses: An observational study. Tob. Prev. Cessation 2018;4(July 26):1-8. doi:10.18332/tpc/92482
 
14.
Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2012;43(1):101-116. doi:10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7.
 
15.
Voss RP, Corser R, McCormick M, Jasper JD. Influencing health decision-making: A study of colour and message framing. Psychol Heal. 2018;33(7):941-954. doi:10.1080/08870446.2018.1453509.
 
16.
O’Keefe DJ, Nan X. The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages for Promoting Vaccination: A Meta-Analytic Review. Health Commun. 2012;27(8):776-783. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.640974.
 
17.
Rigotti NA, DiFranza JR, Chang Y, Tisdale T, Kemp B, Singer DE. The effects of enforcing tobacco-sales laws on adolescents’ access to tobacco and smoking behavior. N Engl J Med. 1997;337(15):1044-1015. doi:10.1056/nejm199710093371505
 
18.
Dawley HH, Baldwin J. The Control of Smoking: Smoking Rate in Designated Smoking and No-Smoking Areas. Int J Addict. 1983;18(7). doi:10.3109/10826088309033070.
 
19.
Ratschen E, Britton J, McNeill A. Smoke-free hospitals - The English experience: Results from a survey, interviews, and site visits. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:1-9. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-41.
 
20.
Shipley M, Allcock R. Achieving a smoke-free hospital: Reported enforcement of smoke-free regulations by NHS health care staff. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2008;30(1):2-7. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdn004.
 
21.
Schultz A, Finegan B, Nykiforuk C, Kvern M. A qualitative investigation of smoke-free policies on hospital property. C Can Med Assoc J. 2011;183(18):2085-2086. doi:10.1503/cmaj.111579.
 
22.
Tversky A, Kahneman D, Tversky A, Kahneman D. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. 2007;211(4481):453-458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
 
23.
Paulhus D, Vazire S. Chapter 13 The Self-report method. In: Robins RW, Fraley RC, Krueger RF, eds. Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology. New York: Guilford Press; 2007:244-239.
 
eISSN:2459-3087