Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2002 Jul 27;325(7357):188.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.188.

Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review

Caroline M Fichtenberg  1 , Stanton A Glantz
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review

Caroline M Fichtenberg et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To quantify the effects of smoke-free workplaces on smoking in employees and compare these effects to those achieved through tax increases.

Design: Systematic review with a random effects meta-analysis.

Study selection: 26 studies on the effects of smoke-free workplaces.

Setting: Workplaces in the United States, Australia, Canada, and Germany.

Participants: Employees in unrestricted and totally smoke-free workplaces.

Main outcome measures: Daily cigarette consumption (per smoker and per employee) and smoking prevalence.

Results: Totally smoke-free workplaces are associated with reductions in prevalence of smoking of 3.8% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 4.7%) and 3.1 (2.4 to 3.8) fewer cigarettes smoked per day per continuing smoker. Combination of the effects of reduced prevalence and lower consumption per continuing smoker yields a mean reduction of 1.3 cigarettes per day per employee, which corresponds to a relative reduction of 29%. To achieve similar reductions the tax on a pack of cigarettes would have to increase from $0.76 to $3.05 (0.78 euro to 3.14 euro) in the United States and from 3.44 pounds sterling to 6.59 pounds sterling (5.32 euro to 10.20 euro) in the United Kingdom. If all workplaces became smoke-free, consumption per capita in the entire population would drop by 4.5% in the United States and 7.6% in the United Kingdom, costing the tobacco industry $1.7 billion and 310 million pounds sterling annually in lost sales. To achieve similar reductions tax per pack would have to increase to $1.11 and 4.26 pounds sterling.

Conclusions: Smoke-free workplaces not only protect non-smokers from the dangers of passive smoking, they also encourage smokers to quit or to reduce consumption.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Funnel plot used to assess publication bias
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

  • Banning smoking in the workplace.
    West R. West R. BMJ. 2002 Jul 27;325(7357):174-5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7357.174. BMJ. 2002. PMID: 12142290 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

References

    1. USDHHS. The health consequences of involuntary smoking. A report of the surgeon general. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control; 1986.
    1. National Cancer Institute. Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: the report of the California Environmental Protectional Agency. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1999. (Smoking and Health Monograph 10).
    1. Repace JL, Lowrey AH. Indoor air pollution, tobacco smoke, and public health. Science. 1980;208:464–472. - PubMed
    1. Glantz SA, Parmley WW. Passive smoking and heart disease. Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry. Circulation. 1991;83:1–12. - PubMed
    1. Shopland DR, Gerlach KK, Burns DM, Hartman AM, Gibson JT. State-specific trends in smoke-free workplace policy coverage. The current population survey tobacco use supplement 1993 to 1999. J Occup Environ Med. 2001;43:680–686. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances