8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Compliance study of hotel and nightclub smoke-free zones in Bogor City, Indonesia

      letter

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Dear Editor Indonesia is the largest of six developing countries that has not ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). However, local governments have established smoke-free zones (SFZs) in order to control tobacco use, as in Bogor City, a city of over 1 million people. Local regulation No.12 of 2009 was implemented in May 2010, and in 2011 Bogor City’s Health Office released its monitoring and evaluation results with regard to compliance in smoke-free zones (SFZs) 1,2 . Compliance to this local regulation was measured by eight indicators: 1) a no-smoking sign at the entrance gate, 2) no one found smoking inside the building’s zones, 3) a no-smoking room within the building’s zones, 4) no smoking equipment found such as ashtrays, 5) no smell of smoke, 6) no cigarette butts found inside the building’s zones, 7) no one selling tobacco, and 8) no tobacco promotion on the premises 1,3 . In the 2011 overall assessment, hotels and nightclubs were the only zones with poor compliance (below 80%) 1 . A previous study only describes hotel and nightclub compliance 4 . On the other hand, we conducted an observational study in 49 out of a total 71 hotels and nightclubs in Bogor City. For these 39 hotels and 10 entertainment outlets participants were selected by their willingness to participate, according to informed consent as ethical approval. For the hotels, a wide variety of zones were monitored, such as: the lobby, restaurant, waiting room, meeting room, business center, a minimum of two toilet rooms, fitness room, floors with a minimum of four bedrooms, and other places such as the bar and/or spa center. Eleven questions were posed (Table 1) derived from eight indicators, and a score of 1 given if it met the criteria and 0 if it did not. Table 1 shows that 8 zones had a score of 8 (16.3%) while 7 zones (14.3%) had either a score 10 or 6. There were 2 zones (4.1%) that had zero score and 2 zones (14.3%) a score of 11. Table 1 Compliance indicators of the implementation of 49 zones for SFZ local regulation in Bogor City Compliance questions Yes (%) No (%) Compliance rate (% cum.) Total of zones (n=49) Is there a no-smoking sign at the entrance? 9 (18.4) 40 (81.6) 1 (9.1) 4 Are there any no-smoking signs inside the building? 40 (81.6) 9 (18.4) 2 (18.2) 7 Does the no-smoking sign mention the SFZ local regulation? 35 (71.4) 14 (28.6) 3 (27.3) 10 Is there any law enforcement sign for the SFZ perpetrator? 35 (71.4) 14 (28.6) 4 (36.4) 12 Is there any particular place for smoking inside the building? 24 (49.0) 25 (51.0) 5 (45.5) 15 Is there any person found smoking inside the building? 30 (61.2) 19 (38.8) 6 (54.5) 22 Is there any cigarette butt found inside the building? 36 (73.5) 13 (26.5) 7 (63.6) 27 Is there any ashtray or such found inside the building? 15 (30.6) 34 (69.4) 8 (72.7) 35 Is there any smell of cigarette smoke inside the building? 27 (55.1) 22 (44.9) 9 (81.8) 40 Is there any item or similar thing with regard to smoking promotion (printed either on napkin table, glass, coaster, poster, banner, etc.)? 36 (73.5) 13 (26.5) 10 (90.9) 47 Is there either any shape or type of cigarette found written on sales promotion, or is it only written ‘cigarettes available’? 31 (63.3) 18 (36.7) 11 (100) 49 Compliance in Bogor City increased over time. The compliance rate in 4453 buildings was 26% initially, but increased to 78% by the end of year 5 . However, this rate was still below the acceptable indicator rate of 80%. Our findings show that management support is essential for a successful SFZ local regulation. Another similar study was undertaken in luxury hotels in Badung Municipality, Bali in 2014 6 . It showed that hotel compliance to the SFZ local regulation was still low (15.4%) and that the smoking behaviour of the management of these zones significantly obstructed SFZ implementation 6 . In developed countries, SFZs are well implemented by applying effective law enforcement, accompanied by preparatory health education campaigns and quitting facilities and advice. In Bogor City, government compliance indicators for SFZs are the same as in California, but in Bogor there is no obligation to provide smoke detectors in each room. The California Government’s Smoke-Free Act resulted in 88% compliance, a decrease in the number of smokers, and protection of both employees and visitors from second-hand smoke 7 . Similarly in Scotland, the SFZs government Act was supported by pub workers before implementation 8,9 . In all, 80% of pub workers believed that this regulation would help to protect their health at work, but 49% were concerned that it would negatively affect business. After implementation, support for this regulation increased and the negative perception decreased to 20% 8,9 . These studies showed that compliance rates in SFZs not only depend on political commitment but also implementation and enforcement by management, as well as perception by workers and the community. Our study found that the Bogor City SFZ implementation was still below 80%, but it was progressing, involving political and managerial commitment, and community and worker acceptance. However, sustained and new approaches are necessary to achieve the target of 80%, with ongoing monitoring.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Bar workers' exposure to second-hand smoke: the effect of Scottish smoke-free legislation on occupational exposure.

          To examine changes in bar workers' exposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) over a 12-month period before and after the introduction of Scottish smoke-free legislation on the 26 March 2006. A total of 371 bar workers were recruited from 72 bars in three cities: Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh and small towns in two rural regions (Borders and Aberdeenshire). Prior to the introduction of the smoke-free legislation, we visited all participants in their place of work and collected saliva samples, for the measurement of cotinine, together with details on work patterns, self-reported exposure to SHS at work and non-work settings and smoking history. This was repeated 2 months post-legislation and again in the spring of 2007. In addition, we gathered full-shift personal exposure data from a small number of Aberdeen bar workers using a personal aerosol monitor for fine particulate matter (PM(2.5)) at the baseline and 2 months post-legislation visits. Data were available for 371 participants at baseline, 266 (72%) at 2 months post-legislation and 191 (51%) at the 1-year follow-up. The salivary cotinine level recorded in non-smokers fell from a geometric mean of 2.94 ng ml(-1) prior to introduction of the legislation to 0.41 ng ml(-1) at 1-year follow-up. Paired data showed a reduction in non-smokers' cotinine levels of 89% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85-92%]. For the whole cohort, the duration of workplace exposure to SHS within the last 7 days fell from 28.5 to 0.83 h, though some bar workers continued to report substantial SHS exposures at work despite the legislation. Smokers also demonstrated reductions in their salivary cotinine levels of 12% (95% CI 3-20%). This may reflect both the reduction in SHS exposure at work and falls in active cigarette smoking in this group. In a small sub-sample of bar workers, full-shift personal exposure to PM(2.5), a marker of SHS concentrations, showed average reductions of 86% between baseline and 2 months after implementation of the legislation. Most bar workers have experienced very large reductions in their workplace exposure to SHS as a result of smoke-free legislation in Scotland. These reductions have been sustained over a period of 1 year.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Long term compliance with California's Smoke-Free Workplace Law among bars and restaurants in Los Angeles County.

            To assess long term compliance with the California Smoke-Free Workplace Law in Los Angeles County freestanding bars and bar/restaurants. Population based annual site inspection survey of a random sample of Los Angeles County freestanding bars and bar/restaurants was conducted from 1998 to 2002. The primary outcomes of interest were patron and employee smoking. The secondary outcomes of interest were the presence of ashtrays and designated outdoor smoking areas. Significant increases in patron non-smoking compliance were found for freestanding bars (45.7% to 75.8%, p < 0.0001) and bar/restaurants (92.2% to 98.5%, p < 0.0001) between 1998 and 2002. Increases in employee non-smoking compliance were found for freestanding bars (86.2% to 94.7%, p < 0.0003) and bar/restaurants (96.5% to 99.2%, p < 0.005). This study provides clear evidence that the California Smoke-Free Workplace Law has been effective at reducing patron and employee smoking in Los Angeles County bars and restaurants. Recommendations include educational campaigns targeted to freestanding bar owners and staff to counter perceptions of lost revenue, more rigorous enforcement, and more severe penalties for repeat violators such as alcohol licence revocation. Policymakers can enact smoke-free restaurant and bar policies to protect employees and patrons from secondhand smoke, confident that these laws can be successfully implemented.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Expectations and changing attitudes of bar workers before and after the implementation of smoke-free legislation in Scotland

              Background In Scotland on March 26, 2006 a comprehensive prohibition on smoking in all enclosed public places was introduced. This study examines bar workers' attitudes towards a smoke-free working environment. Methods An intervention study comparing bar workers' opinions before and after the implementation of the smoke-free legislation. Bars were randomly selected in three Scottish cities (Glasgow, Edinburgh & Aberdeen) and towns (Aberdeenshire & Borders). Bar workers were recruited from 72 bars that agreed to participate from159 approached. Pre- and post-implementation attitudes towards legislation, second-hand smoke and smoke-free working environments were compared. Results Initially the majority of bar workers agreed with the proposed legislation on smoking (69%) and the need for it to protect the health of workers (80%), although almost half (49%) thought the legislation would damage business. In 266 bar workers seen at both surveys, a significant positive attitudinal change towards the legislation was seen. Post-implementation, support for the legislation rose to 79%, bar workers continued to believe it was needed to protect health (81%) and concerns about the impact on business were expressed by fewer than 20%. Only the statement that the legislation would encourage smokers to quit showed reduced support, from 70% pre-implementation to fewer than 60% post-implementation. Initial acceptance was greater among younger bar workers; older workers, initially more sceptical, became less so with experience of the legislation's effects. Conclusion This study shows that bar workers had generally positive attitudes towards the legislation prior to implementation, which became stronger after implementation. The affirmative attitudes of these key stakeholders are likely to contribute towards the creation of 'smoke-free' as the new social norm.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Tob Prev Cessat
                Tob Prev Cessat
                TPC
                Tobacco Prevention & Cessation
                European Publishing on behalf of the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP)
                2459-3087
                03 July 2018
                2018
                : 4
                : 25
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health Science, University of Muhammadiyah, Jakarta, Indonesia
                [2 ]Problem Solving for Quality Hospitals Unit, Center for Education and Public Services, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
                Author notes
                CORRESPONDENCE TO Al Asyary. Department of Public Health Science, University of Muhammadiyah, Jakarta, Indonesia, Jl. Warung Buncit Raya No. 17, Pancoran, Jakarta Selatan, 12790 Jakarta, Indonesia. E-mail: al.asyary13@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                25
                10.18332/tpc/92483
                7205072
                32411851
                e29c27da-2b52-4bd2-902c-98cca7b55bed
                © 2018 Asyary A

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 22 November 2017
                : 29 May 2018
                : 21 June 2018
                Categories
                Letter To the Editor

                smoking cessation,tobacco use,government regulation,law enforcement,social control policies

                Comments

                Comment on this article