Risks associated with alcohol and marijuana use among college student athletes: The case for involving athletic personnel in prevention and intervention.

The purpose of this study was to describe alcohol and marijuana use patterns and related consequences among student athletes. A total of 12,510 students (n=1,233 athletes) completed four cross-sectional online annual surveys as part of a multi-site campus initiative. Chi-square tests of independence, t-tests, and regression models evaluated differences in alcohol and marijuana use between athletes and non-athletes. The prevalence of binge drinking and high intensity drinking was significantly higher among student athletes than non-athletes, even after controlling for demographic characteristics. Thirteen percent of student athletes experienced an alcohol-related injury during the past year; this was more common among binge drinkers than non-binge drinkers (20.5% and 2.6%, respectively). Among student athletes, past-month binge drinking and past-year marijuana use were significantly associated with lowered GPA (ps<.01). Skipping class was twice as prevalent among student athletes who used marijuana as compared with athletes who did not use marijuana, but no differences were found related to binge drinking. Components for a training for athletic personnel to reduce risks for alcohol-related injury and academic consequences that are associated with alcohol and marijuana use among student athletes are described. Involving athletic personnel might be an important strategy to identify and intervene with high-risk student athletes.

E-cigarettes in airports and on flights: Europe and the US. / Cigarrillos electrónicos en aeropuertos y en vuelos: Europa y EEUU.

BACKGROUND: While progress has been made to create smoke-free airports, sales of e-cigarettes at airports and airplanes and the presence of advertisements might detract from these smoke-free policies. The objective of this study is to describe the presence of policies, advertising, sales and use of e-cigarettes in airports and on flights in Europe and the US. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted between March-May, 2014. The study included 21 large and mid-sized airports of Europe and the US as well as 19 flights. A standardised protocol was used to observe points of sales and advertisements and to collect information on the implementation of policies on e-cigarette use. In addition, a series of questions were developed to obtain policy details from airport personnel and flight attendants. RESULTS: Retail outlets selling e-cigarettes in airports were present in approximately 20% and 40% of the observed pre and post-security areas, respectively. In post-security, 27.8% of the airport staff reported that the use of e-cigarettes indoors was not allowed, 22.2% reported that they did not know, 27.8% reported that it was only allowed in the smoking room, and 22.2% reported that it was allowed anywhere. Smoking ban announcements were made on all flights. However, only 15.8% of the flights made a specific announcement regarding the ban of using e-cigarettes. Conclusions. In light of our results, it seems necessary to reinforce in-flight e-cigarette smoking ban announcements and to instruct airport employees about the existence of e-cigarette smoking policies. Furthermore, airports themselves should also be encouraged to adopt smoke-free policies.

Antecedentes. Pese a los avances en las políticas libres de humo en los aeropuertos, las ventas de cigarrillos electrónicos en aeropuertos y aviones y la presencia de publicidad pueden suponer un paso atrás en la implementación de dichas políticas. El objetivo de este estudio es describir la presencia de políticas, publicidad, ventas y el uso de cigarrillos electrónicos en aeropuertos y en vuelos de Europa y los EE.UU.Métodos. Estudio transversal realizado entre marzo y mayo del año 2014. El estudio incluyó 21 aeropuertos grandes y medianos de Europa y los EE.UU., así como 19 vuelos. Se utilizó un protocolo estandarizado para observar puntos de venta y publicidad y se recogió información sobre la implementación de políticas sobre el uso de cigarrillos electrónicos. Además, obtuvo información más detallada del personal del aeropuerto y de los asistentes de vuelo sobre las políticas de uso de cigarrillo electrónicos.Resultados. Los puntos de venta de cigarrillos electrónicos en los aeropuertos estaban presentes en aproximadamente el 20% y el 40% de las áreas observadas antes y después del control de seguridad, respectivamente. Después del control, el 27,8% del personal del aeropuerto declaró que no estaba permitido el uso los cigarrillos electrónicos en el interior, el 22,2% declaró que no sabía si se podían usar, el 27,8% declaró que sólo estaba permitido en el área de fumadores y el 22,2% declaró que se podía fumar en cualquier parte. Todos los vuelos anunciaron la prohibición de fumar. Sin embargo, sólo el 15,8% de los vuelos específicamente anunció la prohibición de usar cigarrillos electrónicos.Conclusiones. Nuestros resultados muestran que sería necesario reforzar los avisos de prohibición del uso de cigarrillos electrónicos durante los vuelos y de instruir a los empleados del aeropuerto sobre la existencia de políticas sobre el uso de cigarrillos electrónicos. Además, también se debería promover políticas libres de humo sin excepciones en todos los aeropuertos.

Cigarrillos electrónicos en aeropuertos y en vuelos: Europa y EEUU / E-cigarettes in airports and on flights: Europe and the US

Antecedentes. Pese a los avances en las políticas libres de humo en los aeropuertos, las ventas de cigarrillos electrónicos en aeropuertos y aviones y la presencia de publicidad pueden suponer un paso atrás en la implementación de dichas políticas. El objetivo de este estudio es describir la presencia de políticas, publicidad, ventas y el uso de cigarrillos electrónicos en aeropuertos y en vuelos de Europa y los EE.UU. Métodos. Estudio transversal realizado entre marzo y mayo del año 2014. El estudio incluyó 21 aeropuertos grandes y medianos de Europa y los EE.UU., así como 19 vuelos. Se utilizó un protocolo estandarizado para observar puntos de venta y publicidad y se recogió información sobre la implementación de políticas sobre el uso de cigarrillos electrónicos. Además, obtuvo información más detallada del personal del aeropuerto y de los asistentes de vuelo sobre las políticas de uso de cigarrillo electrónicos. Resultados. Los puntos de venta de cigarrillos electrónicos en los aeropuertos estaban presentes en aproximadamente el 20% y el 40% de las áreas observadas antes y después del control de seguridad, respectivamente. Después del control, el 27,8% del personal del aeropuerto declaró que no estaba permitido el uso los cigarrillos electrónicos en el interior, el 22,2% declaró que no sabía si se podían usar, el 27,8% declaró que sólo estaba permitido en el área de fumadores y el 22,2% declaró que se podía fumar en cualquier parte. Todos los vuelos anunciaron la prohibición de fumar. Sin embargo, sólo el 15,8% de los vuelos específicamente anunció la prohibición de usar cigarrillos electrónicos. Conclusiones. Nuestros resultados muestran que sería necesario reforzar los avisos de prohibición del uso de cigarrillos electrónicos durante los vuelos y de instruir a los empleados del aeropuerto sobre la existencia de políticas sobre el uso de cigarrillos electrónicos. Además, también se debería promover políticas libres de humo sin excepciones en todos los aeropuertos

Background. While progress has been made to create smoke-free airports, sales of e-cigarettes at airports and airplanes and the presence of advertisements might detract from these smoke-free policies. The objective of this study is to describe the presence of policies, advertising, sales and use of e-cigarettes in airports and on flights in Europe and the US. Methods. A cross-sectional study was conducted between March-May, 2014. The study included 21 large and mid-sized airports of Europe and the US as well as 19 flights. A standardised protocol was used to observe points of sales and advertisements and to collect information on the implementation of policies on e-cigarette use. In addition, a series of questions were developed to obtain policy details from airport personnel and flight attendants. Results. Retail outlets selling e-cigarettes in airports were present in approximately 20% and 40% of the observed pre and post-security areas, respectively. In post-security, 27.8% of the airport staff reported that the use of e-cigarettes indoors was not allowed, 22.2% reported that they did not know, 27.8% reported that it was only allowed in the smoking room, and 22.2% reported that it was allowed anywhere. Smoking ban announcements were made on all flights. However, only 15.8% of the flights made a specific announcement regarding the ban of using e-cigarettes. Conclusions. In light of our results, it seems necessary to reinforce in-flight e-cigarette smoking ban announcements and to instruct airport employees about the existence of e-cigarette smoking policies. Furthermore, airports themselves should also be encouraged to adopt smoke-free policies

Tobacco Smoke Exposure in Indoor and Outdoor Locations in Airports Across Europe and the United States: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: Conduct a systematic evaluation of indoor and outdoor areas of selected airports, assess compliance and identify areas of improvement with smoke-free policies in airports. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study conducted at 21 airports in Europe (11) and the United States (10). Using a standardized protocol, we assessed compliance (smoking, cigarette butts, smoke smell), and the physical environment (signage, ashtrays, designated smoking rooms [DSRs], tobacco sales). RESULTS: Cigarette butts (45% vs. 0%), smoke smell (67% vs. 0%), ashtrays (18% vs. 10%), and DSRs (63% vs. 30%) were observed more commonly indoors in Europe than in the United States. Poor compliance indoors was related to the presence of DSRs (OR 4.8, 95% CI 0.69, 33.8) and to cigarettes sales in pre-security areas (OR 6.0, 95% CI 0.57, 64.7), although not significantly different. Smoking was common in outdoor areas of airports in Europe and the United States (mean (SD) number of smokers 27.7 (23.6) and 6.3 (7.7), respectively, p value < .001). Around half (55%) of airports in Europe and all airports in the United States had some/partial outdoor smoking restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) remains a public health problem in major airports across Europe and in some airports in the United States, specifically related to the presence of DSRs and SHS exposure in outdoor areas. Airports must remove DSRs. Research is needed in low- and middle-income countries and on the effectiveness of outdoor smoking-restricted areas around entryways. Eliminating smoking at airports will protect millions of people from SHS exposure and promote social norms that discourage smoking. IMPLICATIONS: Airports are known to allow exceptions to smoke-free policy by providing DSRs. We found that smoking still occurs in indoor areas in airports, particularly in the context of DSRs. Smoking, moreover, is widespread in outdoor areas and compliance with smoking restrictions is limited. Advancing smoke-free policy requires improvements to the physical environment of airports, including removal of DSRs and implementation of stricter outdoor smoking restrictions.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship in Airports across Europe and the United States.

Tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS) bans are effective and are increasingly being implemented in a number of venues and countries, yet the state of TAPS in airports and their effect on airport smoking behavior is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the presence of TAPS in airports across Europe and the US, and to begin to examine the relationship between TAPS and smoking behaviors in airports. We used a cross-sectional study design to observe 21 airports in Europe (11) and the US (10). Data collectors observed points of sale for tobacco products, types of products sold, advertisements and promotions, and branding or logos that appeared in the airport. Tobacco products were sold in 95% of all airports, with significantly more sales in Europe than the US. Advertisements appeared mostly in post-security areas; however, airports with advertisements in pre-security areas had significantly more smokers observed outdoors than airports without advertisements in pre-security areas. Tobacco branding appeared in designated smoking rooms as well as on non-tobacco products in duty free shops. TAPS are widespread in airports in Europe and the US and might be associated with outdoor smoking, though further research is needed to better understand any relationship between the two. This study adds to a growing body of research on tobacco control in air transit and related issues. As smoke-free policies advance, they should include comprehensive TAPS bans that extend to airport facilities.

The association between airline flight and sinonasal symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Airplane cabin supply air has been shown to contain multiple possible respiratory irritants. In addition, changes in barometric pressure in flight may contribute to specific respiratory conditions. Therefore, there may be an association between commercial airline flight and sinus disease. METHODS: Participants of the Secondhand-Smoke, Air Quality and Respiratory Health Among Flight Attendants Study were administered an online questionnaire pertaining to their flight experience and respiratory health. Working years, working days per month, and number of trips per month were quantified, as well as smoking exposure and self-reported physician diagnoses of sinusitis, asthma, and rhinitis. The sinonasal outcomes were quantified using a Respiratory Questionnaire Survey (RQS) score. Multivariable analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between flight time and sinus disease. RESULTS: A total of 579 participants met the inclusion criteria for this study, with cohort prevalence of sinusitis, asthma, and rhinitis of 25.3%, 14.4%, and 20.5%, respectively. Tertiles 2 and 3 of working days per month were associated with higher RQS scores compared to tertile 1 (p for trend <0.01). Individual symptoms significantly associated with increasing number of working days per month included "need to blow nose," "sneezing," and "thick nasal discharge," and the number of international trips per month was significantly associated with "coughing" and "facial pain and pressure," among other symptoms. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to analyze the relations between airline flight time and sinonasal disease. The results suggest a possible association between sinusitis diagnosis, symptom scores, and specific sinonasal symptoms, and airline flight time.

Using Ecological Momentary Assessment to Study Tobacco Behavior in Urban India: There's an App for That.

BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) uses real-time data collection to assess participants' behaviors and environments. This paper explores the strengths and limitations of using EMA to examine social and environmental exposure to tobacco in urban India among older adolescents and adults. OBJECTIVE: Objectives of this study were (1) to describe the methods used in an EMA study of tobacco use in urban India using a mobile phone app for data collection, (2) to determine the feasibility of using EMA in the chosen setting by drawing on participant completion and compliance rates with the study protocol, and (3) to provide recommendations on implementing mobile phone EMA research in India and other low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: Via mobile phones and the Internet, this study used two EMA surveys: (1) a momentary survey, sent multiple times per day at random to participants, which asked about their real-time tobacco use (smoked and smokeless) and exposure to pro- and antitobacco messaging in their location, and 2) an end-of-day survey sent at the end of each study day. Trained participants, from Hyderabad and Kolkata, India, reported on their social and environmental exposure to tobacco over 10 consecutive days. This feasibility study examined participant compliance, exploring factors related to the successful completion of surveys and the validity of EMA data. RESULTS: The sample included 205 participants, the majority of whom were male (135/205, 65.9%). Almost half smoked less than daily (56/205, 27.3%) or daily (43/205, 21.0%), and 4.4% (9/205) used smokeless tobacco products. Participants completed and returned 46.87% and 73.02% of momentary and end-of-day surveys, respectively. Significant predictors of momentary survey completion included employment and completion of end-of-day surveys. End-of-day survey completion was only significantly predicted by momentary survey completion. CONCLUSIONS: This first study of EMA in India offers promising results, although more research is needed on how to increase compliance. End-of-day survey completion, which has a lower research burden, may be the more appropriate approach to understanding behaviors such as tobacco use within vulnerable populations in challenging locations. Compliance may also be improved by increasing the number of study visits, compliance checks, or opportunities for retraining participants before and during data collection.

Clear Skies and Grey Areas: Flight Attendants' Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Attitudes toward Smoke-Free Policy 25 Years since Smoking was Banned on Airplanes.

Our objective was to provide descriptive data on flight attendant secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in the work environment, and to examine attitudes toward SHS exposure, personal health, and smoke-free policy in the workplace and public places. Flight attendants completed a web-based survey of self-reported SHS exposure and air quality in the work environment. We assessed the frequency and duration of SHS exposure in distinct areas of the workplace, attitudes toward SHS exposure and its health effects, and attitudes toward smoke-free policy in the workplace as well as general public places. A total of 723 flight attendants participated in the survey, and 591 responded to all survey questions. The mean level of exposure per flight attendant over the past month was 249 min. The majority of participants reported being exposed to SHS always/often in outdoor areas of an airport (57.7%). Participants who worked before the in-flight smoking ban (n=240) were more likely to support further smoking policies in airports compared to participants who were employed after the ban (n=346) (76.7% versus 60.4%, p-value<0.01). Flight attendants are still being exposed to SHS in the workplace, sometimes at concerning levels during the non-flight portions of their travel. Flight attendants favor smoke-free policies and want to see further restrictions in airports and public places.

A review of smoking policies in airports around the world.

OBJECTIVE: To review smoking policies of major international airports, to compare these policies with corresponding incountry tobacco control legislation and to identify areas of improvement for advancing smoke-free policy in airports. METHODS: We reviewed smoking policies of 34 major international airports in five world regions, and collected data on current national and subnational legislation on smoke-free indoor places in the corresponding airport locations. We then compared airport smoking policies with local legislation. Additionally, we collected anecdotal information concerning smoking rules and practices in specific airports from an online traveller website. RESULTS: We found that 52.9% of the airports reviewed had indoor smoking rooms or smoking areas; smoking policy was unknown or unstated for two airports. 55.9% of the airports were located in countries where national legislation allowed designated smoking rooms and areas, while 35.3% were in smoke-free countries. Subnational legislation restricted smoking in 60% of the airport locations, while 40% were smoke-free. 71.4% of the airport locations had subnational legislation that allowed smoke-free laws to be more stringent than at the national level, but only half of these places had enacted such laws. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing presence of smoke-free places and legal capacity to enact stricter legislation at the local level, airports represent a public and occupational space that is often overlooked in national or subnational smoke-free policies. Secondhand smoke exposure in airports can be reduced among travellers and workers by implementing and enforcing smoke-free policies in airports. Additionally, existing information on smoke-free legislation lacks consistent terminology and definitions, which are needed to inform future tobacco control policy within airports and in the law.