Before and after study of bar workers' perceptions of the impact of smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland

Pursell, Lisa; Allwright, Shane; O'Donovan, Diarmuid; Paul, Gillian; Kelly, Alan; Mullally, Bernie J.; D'Eath, Maureen
January 2007
BMC Public Health;2007, Vol. 7 Issue 1, p131
Academic Journal
Background: Objectives: To compare support for, and perceptions of, the impacts of smoke-free workplace legislation among bar workers in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) pre- and post-implementation, and to identify predictors of support for the legislation. Methods: Setting: Public houses (pubs) in three areas of the ROI. Design: Comparisons pre- and post-implementation of smoke-free workplace legislation. Participants: From a largely non-random selection, 288 bar workers volunteered for the baseline survey; 220 were followed up one year later (76.4%). Outcome measures: Level of support for the legislation, attitude statements concerning potential impacts of the law and modelled predictors of support for the legislation. Results: Pre-implementation 59.5% of participants supported the legislation, increasing to 76.8% post-implementation. Support increased among smokers by 27.3 percentage points from 39.4% to 66.7% (p < 0.001) and among non-smokers by 12.4% percentage points from 68.8% to 81.2% (p = 0.003). Pre-legislation three-quarters of participants agreed that the legislation would make bars more comfortable and was needed to protect workers' health. Post-legislation these proportions increased to over 90% (p < 0.001). However, negative perceptions also increased, particularly for perceptions that the legislation has a negative impact on business (from 50.9% to 62.7%, p = 0.008) and that fewer people would visit pubs (41.8% to 62.7%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for relevant covariates, including responses to the attitude statements, support for the ban increased two to three-fold post-implementation. Regardless of their views on the economic impact, most participants agreed, both pre- and post-implementation, that the legislation was needed to protect bar workers' health. Conclusion: Smoke-free legislation had the support of three-quarters of a large sample of bar workers in the ROI. However, this group holds complex sets of both positive and negative perspectives on the legislation. Of particular importance is that negative economic perceptions did not diminish the widely held perception that the ban is needed to protect workers' health.


Related Articles

  • Maryland court upholds statewide smoking ban.  // Nation's Restaurant News;3/13/95, Vol. 29 Issue 11, p2 

    Reports on a Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling that a controversial 1994 regulation banning smoking in workplaces statewide is legal and should go into effect starting March 27, 1995. Details of the case; Restaurant owners' opposition to the regulation.

  • Should people have a right to smoke?  // Glamour;Dec93, Vol. 91 Issue 12, p156 

    Discusses anti-smoking policies in the United States. Ban on smoking in public places; Lawsuits against fast-food chains for their failure to ban smoking in their restaurants; Lawsuit filed by cigarette companies against the federal government on the classification of secondhand smoke as...

  • Smoking ban temporarily snuffed.  // Occupational Hazards;Oct94, Vol. 56 Issue 10, p85 

    Reports that a ban on smoking in the workplace has been temporarily suspended in Maryland. Reasons for suspension; Possible harmful effects on businesses; Implications of ban.

  • News tidbits. Laabs, Jennifer J. // Personnel Journal;May95, Vol. 74 Issue 5, p12 

    Reports on the implementation of a law in Maryland limiting smoking in the workplace.

  • News tidbits. Laabs, Jennifer J. // Personnel Journal;May95, Vol. 74 Issue 5, p12 

    Reports on the New York City Council's enactment of a stringent law on workplace smoking.

  • States place bans on workplace smoking.  // HR Magazine;Sep94, Vol. 39 Issue 9, p11 

    Reports on laws passed in California and Maryland that prohibit smoking in the workplace. Work sites exempted from the California law; Challenge to the California by some smokers' rights groups; Maryland's use of occupational and safety regulations.

  • California lawmakers ban smoking in the workplace. Liddle, Alan // Nation's Restaurant News;7/18/94, Vol. 28 Issue 28, p2 

    Reports on the passage of a law in California, banning smoking in enclosed workplaces. Requirement for the law's passage; Provisions of the law on smoking in hotels; Fines.

  • Workplace smoking ban passes first test. Flynn, Gillian; Keller, Donald R. // Personnel Journal;Jul94, Vol. 73 Issue 7, p94 

    Reports on the approval by the House Energy and Commerce Health and Environment Subcommittee of the legislation to ban the use of tobacco products in most workplaces and public buildings.

  • Employers and smokers' right. Lissy, William E. // Supervision;Apr92, Vol. 53 Issue 4, p17 

    Discusses information on rights of employers and smokers regarding the smoking policy in the workplace. The civil right fostered by the American Liberties Union (ACLU) and tobacco industry regarding discrimination on employment for those who use tobacco products; More information.


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics