Use of a Living Lab Approach to Implement a Smoke-Free Campus Policy.

While universities have increasingly become tobacco-/smoke-free, to our knowledge, no campus has reported 100% policy compliance. Innovative approaches to encourage compliance and ongoing data collection are needed. This paper describes actions undertaken, framed within a Living Lab (LL) approach, to implement smoke-free campus policies in an Irish university. The action research comprised student-collected data on observed smoking on campus to evaluate adherence and compliance, first to a smoke-free zones policy (June 2016-March 2018), and then to a smoke-free campus policy (March 2019-February 2020). From June 2016-February 2020, 2909 smokers were observed. Adherence, defined as the average reduction in number of observed smokers from baseline in May 2016, reduced by 79% from 5.7 to 4.9 . Compliance, defined as the proportion of smokers who complied when reminded of the policy, was 90% (2610/2909). Additional activities included development of a broader health promotion programme; identification of a pattern of 'social smoking'; and promoting increased awareness of the environmental harms of tobacco. Ongoing policy implementation is essential for smoke-free policies and should include data collection and evaluation. Actions framed within the characteristics of a LL achieved fewer observed smokers. A LL approach is recommended to encourage policy adherence and compliance.

Student Attitudes Toward Tobacco Use and Tobacco Policies on College Campuses.

We utilized a mixed methods approach to assess student attitudes towards tobacco use and campus tobacco policies. Interviews (N = 21), focus groups (N = 2 groups, 4-5 participants each), and an online survey (N = 636) were conducted among a sample of students attending a 4-year, urban, public university in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. In interviews and focus groups, students expressed skepticism about a tobacco-free campus policy due to perceived violations of personal rights and challenges with enforcement. Of the sample surveyed, 9.2% and 20.6% had used cigarettes or e-cigarettes within the past 30 days. The majority of students agreed that colleges have a responsibility to adopt tobacco-free policies that reduce the risk of tobacco addiction (62.4%) and ensure smoke-free air to breathe (81.5%). However, more than half (56.3%) also indicated that a policy allowing for designated smoking areas for cigarettes was best for campus, which runs counter to a comprehensive tobacco-free policy. Academic year, gender, and race/ethnicity were significant factors associated with support for tobacco-free policies. Current smokers and vapers were less likely to support tobacco-free policies that reduce the risk of tobacco addiction (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1, 0.7 for smokers; OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.1, 0.6 for vapers), but not policies that ensure smoke-free air to breathe. E-cigarettes pose a unique obstacle to tobacco-free policies, as students perceived e-cigarettes to be less harmful than cigarettes. To implement a tobacco-free campus policy, students suggested educational campaigns that focus on the potential health benefits of a tobacco-free campus.

Implementing a tobacco-free hospital campus in Ireland: lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: The Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) had set a target that all HSE facilities should implement the HSE Tobacco Free Campus (TFC) policy by 2015. AIM: The aims of this study are to examine hospital staff awareness and to assess the progress of selected HSE health care facilities towards a TFC policy. METHODS: Three health care facilities that were conveniently located were self-selected in County Cork, namely, an acute hospital, a mental health service and an older person's facility. Three different types of quantitative data were collected between May and September 2016 drawn on Standards 3, 4 and 5 of the European Network for Tobacco Free Health Care Services (ENSH-Global) tools: (1) face-to-face consultation with health care facility managers on their progress towards the HSE TFC policy, (2) self-administered questionnaire to a purposive sample of 153 staff members across three health care facilities and (3) physical observation of signs of smoking and smoking-related information across each health care facility for objective verification of compliance. RESULTS: Of the 153 staff who completed the questionnaire, 64% were females, 39% were nurses, 20% were smokers and 76% agreed with the TFC policy. However, only 26% of the 153 staff had received training on motivational and tobacco cessation techniques. Seventy-seven percent of the 153 staff stated that the campus was not tobacco-free. Physical observation suggested signs of smoking within the campus across all three health care facilities surveyed. CONCLUSION: Staff awareness of the HSE TFC policy across selected health care facilities in Ireland is positive but is not sufficient. There are gaps in the implementation process of the HSE TFC policy in the health care facilities. Therefore, proper communication on the importance of the ENSH-Global standards and cessation training to all staff is necessary to help reduce smoking rates across the health care facilities and also to move towards a Tobacco Free Campus in Ireland.