RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Children are important stakeholders in discussions about regulation of smoking and protection from secondhand smoke, but are rarely acknowledged as such. We explored the opinion of pediatric patients and other key stakeholders regarding the planned smoke-free zone around the Erasmus MC, a large university hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS: In 2019, we conducted a survey among pediatric patients and their parents, Erasmus MC employees, visitors, and adult patients, before implementation of the outdoor smoke-free zone, to assess their opinions on smoking and the planned smoke-free policy. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analyzed mostly using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: In all, 91 parent-child dyads and 563 employees, visitors, patients and students filled in the questionnaires. Over 90% of children reported that they were regularly exposed to tobacco smoke, most often on the streets. Many underlined the exemplary role of healthcare providers, and 89% felt that nobody should be allowed to smoke near the hospital. Among parents, 89% were (very) positive towards the planned implementation of the smoke-free zone. In addition, 70% of adult patients, 81% of employees, 65% of visitors, 89% of students and 75% of 'others' were (very) positive about the new smoke-free policy. Smokers and former smokers generally were less positive about the policy. CONCLUSIONS: Children generally disapproved smoking around a hospital and felt that healthcare providers should be a good example concerning not smoking. The majority of adult patients, employees and visitors support a smoke-free zone surrounding the hospital, and virtually all pediatric patients and their parents do. Children should be acknowledged as important stakeholders in smoke-free policies and should be involved in planning and implementation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: On September 2, 2019, Rotterdam's first inner-city outdoor smoke-free zone encompassing the Erasmus MC, a large university hospital in the Netherlands, the Erasmiaans high school, the Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences and the public road in between, was implemented. AIMS AND METHODS: We aimed to assess spatiotemporal patterning of smoking before and after implementation of this outdoor smoke-free zone. We performed a before-after observational field study. We systematically observed the number of smokers, and their locations and characteristics over 37 days before and after implementation of the smoke-free zone. RESULTS: Before implementation of the smoke-free zone, 4098 people smoked in the area every weekday during working hours. After implementation, the daily number of smokers was 2241, a 45% reduction (p = .007). There was an increase of 432 smokers per day near and just outside the borders of the zone. At baseline, 31% of the smokers were categorized as employee, 22% as student and 3% as patient. Following implementation of the smoke-free zone, the largest decreases in smokers were observed among employees (-67%, p value .004) and patients (-70%, p value .049). Before and after implementation, 21 and 20 smokers were visibly addressed and asked to smoke elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an inner-city smoke-free zone was associated with a substantial decline in the number of smokers in the zone and an overall reduction of smoking in the larger area. Further research should focus on optimizing implementation of and compliance with outdoor smoke-free zones. IMPLICATIONS: A smoke-free outdoor policy has the potential to denormalize and discourage smoking, support smokers who want to quit, and to protect people from secondhand smoke exposure. Implementation of an inner-city smoke-free zone encompassing a large tertiary hospital and two educational institutions was associated with a substantial decline in the number of smokers in the zone, as well as in the larger area. Voluntary outdoor smoke-free zones can help reduce the number of smokers in the area and protect people from secondhand smoke. There is a need to explore effectiveness of additional measures to further improve compliance.
