Boderie Nienke W, Breunis Leonieke J, Biney Isabella, Borsboom Jodie, Ter Braake Jonne G, Koolen Laura, de Kroon Marlou L A, Been Jasper V
Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erasmus MC Sophia Children's Hospital, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Tob Prev Cessat. 2021 Oct 20;7:65. doi: 10.18332/tpc/142498. eCollection 2021.
Addressing smokers who smoke in a voluntary smoke-free area is vital to its successful implementation. Many people perceive barriers in addressing smokers due to fear of negative responses. Insights in actual responses are currently lacking.
This is an observational field study at the voluntary smoke-free zone surrounding the Erasmus MC and two schools in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In the first month after implementing the zone, Erasmus MC representatives performed rounds to address smokers who were smoking inside the zone. Four people observed addressors for two weeks then they also addressed the smokers. Smokers were classified as employees, patients, students, or other. We noted whether smokers were addressed directly or indirectly, and their verbal and behavioral responses to being addressed. Differences between the responses of the groups were assessed using chi-squared tests.
In all, 331 smokers were observed of whom 73% were addressed directly. Most verbal reactions were positive (46%) or neutral (18%). Employees were more likely to respond guiltily, whereas patients more often responded angrily than the others. After being addressed, the majority of smokers either extinguished their cigarette (41%) or left to continue smoking outside the smoke-free zone (34%).
Most smokers showed a positive or neutral response when being addressed about smoking inside the smoke-free zone and the majority adapted their behavior to comply with the policy. These findings may help decrease barriers for those in doubt about addressing smokers that fail to comply with a smoke-free policy.
劝导在自愿无烟区吸烟的吸烟者对于该区域的成功实施至关重要。许多人因担心负面反应而认为在劝导吸烟者时存在障碍。目前缺乏对实际反应的深入了解。
这是一项在荷兰鹿特丹伊拉斯姆斯医学中心及两所学校周边的自愿无烟区进行的观察性实地研究。在该区域实施后的第一个月，伊拉斯姆斯医学中心的代表进行巡查，劝导在该区域内吸烟的吸烟者。四人观察巡查人员两周，之后他们也对吸烟者进行劝导。吸烟者被分为员工、患者、学生或其他类别。我们记录吸烟者是被直接还是间接劝导，以及他们对被劝导的言语和行为反应。使用卡方检验评估各组反应之间的差异。
总共观察到331名吸烟者，其中73%被直接劝导。大多数言语反应是积极的（46%）或中性的（18%）。员工更可能有愧疚反应，而患者比其他人更常愤怒回应。被劝导后，大多数吸烟者要么熄灭香烟（41%），要么离开到无烟区外继续吸烟（34%）。
当就无烟区内吸烟问题对大多数吸烟者进行劝导时，他们表现出积极或中性的反应，并且大多数人调整了自己的行为以遵守规定。这些发现可能有助于减少那些对劝导不遵守无烟政策的吸烟者心存疑虑的人的障碍。
