Secondhand Smoke Exposure Among Young Adult Sexual Minority Bar and Nightclub Patrons

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

We compared exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and attitudes toward smoke-free bar and nightclub policies among patrons of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and non-LGBT bars and nightclubs.

Related collections

Most cited references 34

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Tobacco use among sexual minorities in the USA, 1987 to May 2007: a systematic review.

Sang Lee, Jennifer Melvin, M. Griffin (2009)

This paper examines the prevalence of tobacco use among sexual minorities in the US through a systematic review of literature from 1987 to May 2007. Seven databases were searched for peer-reviewed research (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library via Wiley InterScience, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Health Source: Nursing/Academic, Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science, PsycINFO via EBSCO Host and PubMed). No language restrictions were used. Abstracts were identified in the literature search (n = 734) and were independently read and coded for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers. When agreement was not reached, a third reviewer acted as arbitrator. Abstracts were included if they presented data collected in the US from 1987 to May 2007 and reported prevalence or correlation of tobacco use with sexual minority status. Studies reporting data from HIV-positive samples were excluded. The identified articles (n = 46) were independently read by two reviewers who recorded key outcome measures, including prevalence and/or odds ratios of tobacco use, sample size and domain of sexuality (identity, behaviour, or desire). Factors relating to study design and methodology were used to assess study quality according to nine criteria. In the 42 included studies, 119 measures of tobacco prevalence or association were reported. The available evidence points to disparities in smoking among sexual minorities that are significantly higher than among the general population. Ongoing, targeted interventions addressing smoking among sexual minorities are warranted in tobacco control programs.

0 comments Cited 107 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Association between smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases: a meta-analysis.

S Glantz, E Tan (2012)

Secondhand smoke causes cardiovascular and respiratory disease. Smoke-free legislation is associated with a lower risk of hospitalization and death from these diseases. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted by law comprehensiveness to determine the relationship between smoke-free legislation and hospital admission or death from cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases. Studies were identified by using a systematic search for studies published before November 30, 2011 with the use of the Science Citation Index, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase and references in identified articles. Change in hospital admissions (or deaths) in the presence of a smoke-free law, duration of follow-up, and law comprehensiveness (workplaces only; workplaces and restaurants; or workplaces, restaurants, and bars) were recorded. Forty-five studies of 33 smoke-free laws with median follow-up of 24 months (range, 2-57 months) were included. Comprehensive smoke-free legislation was associated with significantly lower rates of hospital admissions (or deaths) for all 4 diagnostic groups: coronary events (relative risk, 0.848; 95% confidence interval 0.816-0.881), other heart disease (relative risk, 0.610; 95% confidence interval, 0.440-0.847), cerebrovascular accidents (relative risk, 0.840; 95% confidence interval, 0.753-0.936), and respiratory disease (relative risk, 0.760; 95% confidence interval, 0.682-0.846). The difference in risk following comprehensive smoke-free laws does not change with longer follow-up. More comprehensive laws were associated with larger changes in risk. Smoke-free legislation was associated with a lower risk of smoking-related cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases, with more comprehensive laws associated with greater changes in risk.