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
. 2024 Jan 17:22.
doi: 10.18332/tid/176141. eCollection 2024.

Public support for smoke-free private indoor and public outdoor areas in the Netherlands: A trend analysis from 2018-2022

Nienke W Boderie  1 , Sabri Ennissay  1 , Wilhelmina Ijzelenberg  2 , Frank J van Lenthe  1 , Jessica Baars  3 , Jasper V Been  1   4   5
Affiliations

Public support for smoke-free private indoor and public outdoor areas in the Netherlands: A trend analysis from 2018-2022

Nienke W Boderie et al. Tob Induc Dis. .

Abstract

Introduction: In addition to smoke-free policies in indoor public and workplaces, governments increasingly implement smoke-free policies at beaches, in parks, playgrounds and private cars ('novel smoke-free policies'). An important element in the implementation of such policies is public support. In the context of the ambition of the Netherlands to reach a smoke-free generation by 2040, we investigated temporal changes in public support for novel smoke-free policies.

Methods: We analyzed annual cross-sectional questionnaires in a representative sample of the Dutch population from 2018 to 2022. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to model public support for each smoke-free policy area as a function of time (calendar year), smoking status, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interaction terms were added for time with smoking status and with socioeconomic status.

Results: A total of 5582 participant responses were included. Between 2018 and 2022, support increased most for smoke-free policies regarding train platforms (+16%), theme parks (+12%), beaches (+10%), and terraces (+10%). In 2022, average support was higher than 65% for all categories of smoke-free places and highest for private cars with children (91%). Regression analyses indicated significant increases in support over time within each category of smoke-free places (adjusted odds ratio, AOR between 1.09 and 1.17 per year), except smoke-free private cars with children (AOR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.89-1.05). Regardless of smoking status, support was high for places where children often go.

Conclusions: Support for novel smoke-free places in the Netherlands is high and increasing, in particular for places frequented by children. This indicates the potential to implement such measures in the Netherlands.

Keywords: public support; repeated crosssectional; smoke-free zones.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have each completed and submitted an ICMJE form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. The authors declare that they have no competing interests, financial or otherwise, related to the current work. J.V. Been is the PI of a research project to tailor a national smoking cessation program for (future) parents funded by the Erasmus Initiatives Smarter Choices for Better Health Program and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports paid to Erasmus MC. Also, J.V. Been is a member of the National Taskforce Smokefree Start, a collaboration of professional organizations involved in the care of pregnant couples, parents, and children aimed at supporting a smokefree start. This Taskforce is supported by the Trimbos Institute and the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports. Fees for participation in the Taskforce are paid to Erasmus MC. J.V. Been chairs the Taskforce Smokefree Erasmus MC, which aims to support a smoke-free hospital environment and optimize smoking cessation support for patients and employees. Finally, J.V. Been is a committee member for the national multidisciplinary guideline on tobacco addiction treatment and smoking cessation support. J. Baars reports that since the initial planning of the work, she has worked at Health Funds for Smokefree Netherlands and that her organization, which provided the data for this study, has been paid for the data collection itself.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Public support for smoke-free policies, grouped by similar policies from 2018 to 2022. Dotted grey lines represent mean support per category and grey area represents the 95% confidence interval
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organization . World Health Organization (WHO): Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; 2003. Accessed November 29, 2023. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-legal-materials/ar...
    1. Faber T, Kumar A, Mackenbach JP, et al. Effect of tobacco control policies on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(9):e420-e437. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30144-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Frazer K, Callinan JE, McHugh J, et al. Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2(2):CD005992. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Radó MK, Mölenberg FJM, Westenberg LEH, et al. Effect of smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and private places on children’s tobacco smoke exposure and respiratory health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2021;6(8):e566-e578. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00097-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brooks A, Buchanan T, Oakes W. Smoke-free environments: current status and remaining challenges in Australia. Public Health Res Pract. 2020;30(3):3032022. doi: 10.17061/phrp3032022 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources