School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
Nicotine Tob Res. 2020 Jun 12;22(7):1235-1238. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntz192.
There is an absence of evidence regarding the impact of treating tobacco smoking and vaping equivalently in workplace policies. We aimed to describe and compare smoking and vaping policies in acute nonspecialist NHS Trusts (n = 131) and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) (n = 131) in England.
We conducted a census of smoking and vaping policies through organizational websites searches and direct requests for information. We recorded whether and where smoking and vaping were permitted.
Smoking was prohibited indoors in all organizations. No NHS Trust permitted smoking freely outdoors, in contrast with 60% of HEIs. In 27% of NHS Trusts and 33% of HEIs smoking was permitted in designated areas, while in 73% of NHS Trusts and 8% of HEIs smoking was prohibited anywhere on site. Vaping was prohibited indoors in all NHS Trusts and all but one HEI, but permitted freely outdoors in 18% of NHS Trusts and 75% of HEIs. Vaping was permitted in designated outdoor spaces in 23% of NHS Trusts: 21% had areas shared with smokers; 2% had separate vaping areas. Vaping was permitted in designated outdoor areas in 18% of HEIs, all of which were shared with smokers. Vaping was prohibited anywhere on site in 54% of NHS Trusts and 6% of HEIs.
Policies vary considerably in whether vaping and smoking are treated equivalently. Smoking policies in most HEIs should be reviewed to include more effective tobacco control approaches. Evidence is needed on the impact of imposing shared or separate spaces on vapers and smokers.
This report provides a comprehensive review of smoking and vaping policies in two types of organization across England. It highlights key discrepancies between current public health recommendations for vaping and existing workplace policies, which often lead to smokers and vapers sharing spaces. The report identifies the need for evidence on the impact of imposing shared spaces on smokers and vapers to inform workplace policies that maximize public health benefit.
在工作场所政策中,将吸烟和蒸气吸入等同对待的影响缺乏证据。我们旨在描述和比较英格兰的急性非专科 NHS 信托基金(n=131)和高等教育机构(HEIs)(n=131)的吸烟和蒸气吸入政策。
我们通过组织网站搜索和直接信息请求,对吸烟和蒸气吸入政策进行了普查。我们记录了吸烟和蒸气吸入是否被允许以及允许的地点。
所有组织都禁止在室内吸烟。没有一家 NHS 信托基金允许在户外自由吸烟,而有 60%的 HEIs 允许。在 27%的 NHS 信托基金和 33%的 HEIs 中,允许在指定区域吸烟,而在 73%的 NHS 信托基金和 8%的 HEIs 中,任何地方都禁止吸烟。在所有 NHS 信托基金和除一家外的所有 HEIs 中,室内都禁止蒸气吸入,但在 18%的 NHS 信托基金和 75%的 HEIs 中,允许在户外自由蒸气吸入。在 23%的 NHS 信托基金中,允许在指定的户外空间蒸气吸入:21%的区域与吸烟者共享;2%的区域有单独的蒸气吸入区。在 18%的 HEIs 中,允许在指定的户外区域蒸气吸入,这些区域均与吸烟者共享。在 54%的 NHS 信托基金和 6%的 HEIs 中,任何地方都禁止在现场蒸气吸入。
蒸气吸入和吸烟是否被等同对待的政策差异很大。大多数 HEIs 的吸烟政策应进行审查,以纳入更有效的烟草控制方法。需要有证据表明对吸烟者和蒸气吸入者施加共享或单独空间的影响。
本报告全面审查了英格兰两种类型组织的吸烟和蒸气吸入政策。它突出了当前公共卫生对蒸气吸入的建议与现有工作场所政策之间的主要差异,这些政策往往导致吸烟者和蒸气吸入者共享空间。该报告确定了需要有证据表明对吸烟者和蒸气吸入者施加共享空间的影响,以便为最大限度地提高公共卫生效益的工作场所政策提供信息。