Allwright Shane, Paul Gillian, Greiner Birgit, Mullally Bernie J, Pursell Lisa, Kelly Alan, Bonner Brendan, D'Eath Maureen, McConnell Bill, McLaughlin James P, O'Donovan Diarmuid, O'kane Eamon, Perry Ivan J
Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Trinity College Centre for Health Sciences, AMNCH, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Republic of Ireland.
BMJ. 2005 Nov 12;331(7525):1117. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38636.499225.55. Epub 2005 Oct 17.
To compare exposure to secondhand smoke and respiratory health in bar staff in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland before and after the introduction of legislation for smoke-free workplaces in the Republic.
Comparisons before and after the legislation in intervention and control regions.
Public houses in three areas in the Republic (intervention) and one area in Northern Ireland (control).
329 bar staff enrolled in baseline survey; 249 (76%) followed up one year later. Of these, 158 were non-smokers both at baseline and follow-up.
Salivary cotinine concentration, self reported exposure to secondhand smoke, and respiratory and sensory irritation symptoms.
In bar staff in the Republic who did not themselves smoke, salivary cotinine concentrations dropped by 80% after the smoke-free law (from median 29.0 nmol/l (95% confidence interval 18.2 to 43.2 nmol/l)) to 5.1 nmol/l (2.8 to 13.1 nmol/l) in contrast with a 20% decline in Northern Ireland over the same period (from median 25.3 nmol/l (10.4 to 59.2 nmol/l) to 20.4 nmol/l (13.2 to 33.8 nmol/l)). Changes in self reported exposure to secondhand smoke were consistent with the changes in cotinine concentrations. Reporting any respiratory symptom declined significantly in the Republic (down 16.7%, -26.1% to -7.3%) but not in Northern Ireland (0% difference, -32.7% to 32.7%). After adjustment for confounding, respiratory symptoms declined significantly more in the Republic than in Northern Ireland and the decline in cotinine concentration was twice as great.
The smoke-free law in the Republic of Ireland protects non-smoking bar workers from exposure to secondhand smoke.
比较爱尔兰共和国实施无烟工作场所立法前后，爱尔兰共和国和北爱尔兰酒吧工作人员的二手烟暴露情况及呼吸健康状况。
干预地区和对照地区在立法前后进行比较。
爱尔兰共和国三个地区（干预地区）和北爱尔兰一个地区（对照地区）的酒吧。
329名酒吧工作人员参加了基线调查；一年后对249人（76%）进行了随访。其中，158人在基线和随访时均为非吸烟者。
唾液可替宁浓度、自我报告的二手烟暴露情况以及呼吸和感官刺激症状。
在爱尔兰共和国不吸烟的酒吧工作人员中，无烟法律实施后唾液可替宁浓度下降了80%（从中位数29.0纳摩尔/升（95%置信区间18.2至43.2纳摩尔/升）降至5.1纳摩尔/升（2.8至13.1纳摩尔/升）），而同期北爱尔兰下降了20%（从中位数25.3纳摩尔/升（10.4至59.2纳摩尔/升）降至20.4纳摩尔/升（13.2至33.8纳摩尔/升））。自我报告的二手烟暴露变化与可替宁浓度变化一致。爱尔兰共和国报告有任何呼吸症状的人数显著下降（下降16.7%，-26.1%至-7.3%），但北爱尔兰没有下降（差异为0%，-32.7%至32.7%）。在对混杂因素进行调整后，爱尔兰共和国呼吸症状的下降幅度明显大于北爱尔兰，可替宁浓度的下降幅度是北爱尔兰的两倍。
爱尔兰共和国的无烟法律保护了不吸烟的酒吧工作人员免受二手烟暴露。
