Evidence from a Smoking Management Service in a University Teaching Hospital in Dublin, Ireland monitored by repeat surveys, 1997-2022.

St Vincent's University Hospital (SVUH) has a comprehensive smoking management programme and since 1997 has conducted periodic surveys of inpatients, outpatients, staff and visitors to establish prevalence of smoking and associated attitudes towards the hospital's smoke-free campus policy pioneered in 2009. We report trends and describe also the online community stop smoking course (SSC) developed more recently in response to COVID-19. A questionnaire examining attitudes and smoking status was administered by census surveys of inpatients, quota or random sub-sample surveys of staff, and quota surveys with outpatients and visitors in the time period of 1997-2018. Chi square test for trend was used. Smoking rates declined in all groups but significantly so in outpatients (19.5% vs. 10%; p < 0.01), visitors (27.4% vs. 9.5%; p < 0.0001) and staff (30.0% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.0001). Use of E-Cigarettes was low in all cohorts. Rates of smoking were borderline higher in inpatients eligible by income for state-funded General Medical Services (33.2% vs 26.8%, p = 0.099). Support for and awareness of the ban increased over time. Demographic and quit data was compared between participants of in-person or online SSC. The online courses were successful with a maintenance of quit rates (End of Course: 54.7% vs. 55.0%, 1 Month: 50.4% vs. 54.0%, 3 Month: 19.8% vs. 22.5%). While the hospital community's smoking prevalence has decreased over time and attitudes to the smoking ban have been increasingly positive, the campus is not without difficulties in keeping it smoke-free. We continue to advocate for hospital staff support in enacting this flagship initiative.

Has the National Fall in Smoking Rates in Ireland Been Replicated in Cancer Patients? A 5-Year Report.

Smoking among cancer patients leads to poorer outcomes, yet many patients continue smoking. As part of a feasibility study of smoking cessation for cancer patients in Ireland, smoking rates were reviewed. Hospital Inpatient Enquiry (HIPE) data on the smoking status of discharges with a cancer diagnosis (overall, breast, lung, cervical and head and neck cancer) were used (2014-2018). During 2014-2017, current smoking increased for overall (10.5-11.7%) and lung cancer (24.7-27.2%), then decreased to 11.4% and 24.1%, respectively, in 2018. Current smoking increased for cervical during 2014-2018 (11-19.8%) and initially (2014-2016) for head and neck (3-12.7%) cancer, decreasing to 7.6% in 2018; breast cancer was stable at 6 ± 0.6%. These rates are lower than the Irish (23-20%) and European (29% (average)) general population. During 2014-2017, past smoking increased among overall (15.2-21%) and specific cancers, which was lower than the Irish general population (23-28%). Current smoking was highest among 50-59-year-olds (14-16%), which contrasts with the Irish general population (24-35 years at 32-28%). HIPE data are subject to potential duplicate episodes of care and under-documentation of smoking. However, trend analysis is useful, as these limitations should be stable. Rates remain high; therefore, robust documentation and smoking cessation referrals for cancer patients are important.

The IUHPE Health Promotion Accreditation System - developing and maintaining a competent health promotion workforce.

This commentary reports on the development and implementation of the competency-based IUHPE Health Promotion Accreditation System in the context of workforce capacity as a key activity of the International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE). The process of developing the System is described, including how it built on, and added to, international research and experience in competency-based approaches to health promotion. An overview of how the System works, its current status and future plans, is presented. Evidence of the positive impact of the System to date, in particular in the context of health promotion education, is considered.

Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

BACKGROUND: Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and the smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. Since the first version of this review in 2010, more countries have introduced national smoking legislation banning indoor smoking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of legislative smoking bans on (1) morbidity and mortality from exposure to secondhand smoke, and (2) smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and reference lists of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; February 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans affecting populations. The minimum standard was having an indoor smoking ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. Our search included a broad range of research designs including: randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author extracted characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies and a second author checked the details. We extracted health and smoking behaviour outcomes. We did not attempt a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in design and content of the studies included. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: There are 77 studies included in this updated review. We retained 12 studies from the original review and identified 65 new studies. Evidence from 21 countries is provided in this update, an increase of eight countries from the original review. The nature of the intervention precludes randomized controlled trials. Thirty-six studies used an interrupted time series study design, 23 studies use a controlled before-and-after design and 18 studies are before-and-after studies with no control group; six of these studies use a cohort design. Seventy-two studies reported health outcomes, including cardiovascular (44), respiratory (21), and perinatal outcomes (7). Eleven studies reported national mortality rates for smoking-related diseases. A number of the studies report multiple health outcomes. There is consistent evidence of a positive impact of national smoking bans on improving cardiovascular health outcomes, and reducing mortality for associated smoking-related illnesses. Effects on respiratory and perinatal health were less consistent. We found 24 studies evaluating the impact of national smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviour. Evidence of an impact of legislative bans on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption is inconsistent, with some studies not detecting additional long-term change in existing trends in prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the first version of this review was published, the current evidence provides more robust support for the previous conclusions that the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes through reduction in SHS for countries and their populations. The clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is evidence of reduced mortality from smoking-related illnesses at a national level. There is inconsistent evidence of an impact on respiratory and perinatal health outcomes, and on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

BACKGROUND: Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which legislation-based smoking bans or restrictions reduce exposure to SHS, help people who smoke to reduce tobacco consumption or lower smoking prevalence and affect the health of those in areas which have a ban or restriction in place. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Conference Paper Index, and reference lists and bibliographies of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; July 1st 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans and restrictions affecting populations. The minimum standard was having a ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before and after studies, interrupted-time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies were extracted by one author and checked by a second. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the studies, we did not attempt a meta-analysis. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: There were 50 studies included in this review. Thirty-one studies reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) with 19 studies measuring it using biomarkers. There was consistent evidence that smoking bans reduced exposure to SHS in workplaces, restaurants, pubs and in public places. There was a greater reduction in exposure to SHS in hospitality workers compared to the general population. We failed to detect any difference in self-reported exposure to SHS in cars. There was no change in either the prevalence or duration of reported exposure to SHS in the home as a result of implementing legislative bans. Twenty-three studies reported measures of active smoking, often as a co-variable rather than an end-point in itself, with no consistent evidence of a reduction in smoking prevalence attributable to the ban. Total tobacco consumption was reduced in studies where prevalence declined. Twenty-five studies reported health indicators as an outcome. Self-reported respiratory and sensory symptoms were measured in 12 studies, with lung function measured in five of them. There was consistent evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiac events as well as an improvement in some health indicators after the ban. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to a reduction in exposure to passive smoking. Hospitality workers experienced a greater reduction in exposure to SHS after implementing the ban compared to the general population. There is limited evidence about the impact on active smoking but the trend is downwards. There is some evidence of an improvement in health outcomes. The strongest evidence is the reduction seen in admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is an increase in support for and compliance with smoking bans after the legislation.

Implementation of a campus-wide Irish hospital smoking ban in 2009: prevalence and attitudinal trends among staff and patients in lead up.

We report the evidence base that supported the decision to implement the first campus-wide hospital smoking ban in the Republic of Ireland with effect from 1 January 2009. Three separate data sources are utilized; surveillance data collected from patients and staff in 8 surveys between 1997 and 2006, a 1-week observational study to assess smoker behaviour in designated smoking shelters and an attitudinal interview with 28 smoker patients and 30 staff on the implications of the 2004 indoors workplace smoking ban, conducted in 2005. The main outcome measures were trends in prevalence of smoking over time according to age, sex and occupational groups and attitudes to the 2004 ban and a projected outright campus ban. Smoking rates among patients remained steady, 24.2% in 1997/98 and 22.7% in 2006. Staff smoking rates declined from 27.4% to 17.8%, with a strong occupational gradient. Observational evidence suggested a majority of those using smoking shelters in 2005 were women and health-care workers rather than patients. Attitudes of patients and staff were positive towards the 2004 ban, but with some ambivalence on the effectiveness of current arrangements. Staff particularly were concerned with patient safety issues associated with smoking outdoors. The 2004 ban was supported by 87.6% of patients and 81.3% of staff in 2006 and a majority of 58.6% of patients and 52.4% of staff agreed with an outright campus ban being implemented. These findings were persuasive in instigating a process in 2007/08 to go totally smoke-free by 2009, the stages for which are discussed.