Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Public Health

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Smoking behaviors before and after implementation of a smoke-free legislation in Guangzhou, China

  • Xiaohua Ye1,
  • Sidong Chen1,
  • Zhenjiang Yao1,
  • Yanhui Gao1,
  • Ya Xu1,
  • Shudong Zhou1,
  • Zhengwei Zhu2,
  • Liang Wang3 and
  • Yi Yang1Email author
BMC Public Health201515:982

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2353-6

Received: 9 December 2014

Accepted: 25 September 2015

Published: 29 September 2015

Abstract

Background

According to the partial smoke-free legislation implemented on 1 September 2010 in Guangzhou, China, smoke-free did not cover all indoor areas. Some places have a full smoking ban (100 % smoke-free), other places have a partial smoking ban, and homes have no ban. This study aimed to compare the smoking behaviors before and after implementation of a smoke-free legislation.

Method

A repeated cross-sectional survey was conducted on smoking-related behaviors with a total of 4,900 respondents before, and 5,135 respondents after the legislation was instituted. For each wave of the survey, a three-stage stratified sampling process was used to obtain a representative sample. Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to determine differences of smoking prevalence and quit ratio between the two samples. Logistic regression models were used to examine the associations of a smoke-free legislation with smoking behaviors.

Results

The overall daily smoking rate declined significantly from 20.8 % to 18.2 % (p < 0.05), especially among those aged 15–24 years. The quit ratios increased significantly (from 14.5 % to 17.9 %), but remained low among 15–44 year olds. The overall self-reported smoking behaviors in locations with a full smoking ban decreased significantly from 36.4 % to 24.3 % with the greater drops occurring in cultural venues, public transport vehicles, and government offices. Smoking in places with partial smoking bans remained high (89.6 % vs. 90.4 %), although a slight decrease was observed in some of these areas. The implementation of a smoke-free legislation did not lead to more smoking in homes (91.0 % vs 89.4 %), but smoking in homes remained high.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive smoke-free legislation covering all public places in Guangzhou, simultaneously educational interventions and campaigns promoting voluntary changes in home smoking need to occur.

Keywords

Smoke-freeTobacco controlSmoking

Background

Tobacco use substantially increases the risk of dying from cancers, heart diseases, stroke and chronic respiratory diseases, and has been the second leading risk factor for deaths worldwide [1]. It is noteworthy that tobacco use is increasing in many low- and middle-income countries [2]. By 2030, if current patterns of use persist, tobacco will kill more than 8 million people worldwide each year, and 80 % of these premature deaths will occur in low- and middle-income countries [2]. One such country, the world’s largest producer, consumer and victim of tobacco, is China. A recent study indicated that China was home to 301 million smokers (45.5 % of the world’s smokers), only 16 % of current smokers were looking to quit in the coming year [3]. Approximately one million people die every year due to direct or indirect tobacco-related deaths [4].

The findings from studies conducted in several countries indicate that smoke-free legislations can improve indoor air quality, reduce tobacco use and decrease hospital admissions attributed to acute coronary syndrome [58]. Although so far no national smoke-free law exists in China, Guangzhou was one of the earliest cities to implement a partial smoke-free legislation, beginning September 1, 2010. According to the legislation, smoke-free did not cover all indoor areas. Some places (including cultural venues, public transportation vehicles, government offices, commercial venues, medical facilities, schools, and stadiums) have a full smoking ban (100 % smoke-free, without designated smoking rooms), other places (including workplaces, restaurants, hotels, cafes, bars, nightclubs, amusement parks, and waiting rooms of transportation vehicles) have a partial smoking ban (with designated smoking rooms), and homes have no smoking ban. Although Guangzhou did not adopt a 100 % smoke-free policy, the partial smoke-free legislation was the most strict tobacco control policy in China at that time.

Even though a smoke-free legislation can be a powerful public health intervention, little is known about the impacts of a smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviors in full, partial and no smoking ban places in Guangzhou, China. Additionally, before the legislation was implemented, there was concern that people might transfer their smoking from public places to their homes. Therefore, the present study aimed to address the following three questions: (1) Were there differential associations of a smoke-free legislation with smoking behaviors in full and partial smoking ban places in Guangzhou, China? (2) Would smokers transfer their smoking behaviors from public places and workplaces to their homes? (3) Did indicators of smoking prevalence decrease and quit ratios increase in Guangzhou after the legislation was implemented?

Methods

Sampling design

Two epidemiological, observational and cross-sectional surveys were conducted in Guangzhou, China. The methods of the survey are described in detail elsewhere [9]. Briefly, a three-stage stratified sampling process was employed to obtain an independent, representative sample. The field work for the baseline survey was undertaken in May 2009, before the implementation of the smoke-free legislation. The evaluation survey was conducted in May 2011, 9 months after implementation of the smoke-free legislation. A total of 4,930 participants were interviewed in the baseline survey, and 5,156 participants were interviewed in the evaluation survey.

Study variables

The primary outcome variables were smoking prevalence, quit ratio, and smoking behaviors in different kinds of venues. Accordingly, the survey instrument contained three major sections: 1) smoking prevalence, 2) quit ratio and 3) smoking behaviors. To determine the prevalence of smoking, individuals were asked if they were current smokers (a person who has smoked daily or occasionally in the last 30 days for at least 6 months) or former smokers (a person who has a history of smoking for at least 6 months and currently has stopped). To assess smoking behaviors, current smokers were asked a series of questions to determine their travel history (i.e. cultural venues, public transportation vehicles, government offices, commercial venues, medical facilities, schools, stadiums, workplaces, restaurants, hotels, cafes, bars, nightclubs, amusement parks, waiting rooms of transportation vehicles and homes) for the past two weeks and if smoking had occurred at that particular location. To evaluate quitting behaviors, the quit ratio was estimated by taking the ratio of the number of former smokers to the number of ever smokers [10]. The main predictor variable was the implementation of the smoke-free legislation.

Data collection and quality control

Interviewers were enrolled voluntarily from third- and fourth-year undergraduate students in the School of Public Health of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, China. All interviewers were trained to ensure that the operation procedures were identical across all areas. After obtaining informed consent verbally, eligible respondents were asked to complete a face-to-face survey by the trained interviewers.

Data analysis

All data were entered in duplicate into the EpiData version 3.1 database, and data entry screens were used to revise incorrect entries. Descriptive statistics were conducted for the two samples. The data from smoking prevalence and quit ratios were examined by sex and age, and differences between the two samples were determined using the Pearson’s chi-square test. Separate logistic regression models were used to examine the associations of a smoke-free legislation with smoking behaviors. The two-sided p-value for statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. To account for sampling design and weight in the estimation procedures, statistical analyses were conducted with weighted data, except for those otherwise specified. All statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 13.0 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA).

Ethical approval

The study was approved by the ethics committee of Guangdong Pharmaceutical University, and this survey was qualified as involving no risks to participants. A verbal informed consent regarding the goals of the study and the willingness to participate in the study was given by the participants.

Results

Demographic characteristics

In the baseline survey conducted in 2009 (before implementation of the smoke-free legislation), a total of 5409 participants were interviewed, of whom 4930 (91.1 %) were willing to participate and 4900 (90.6 %) provided complete data. In the evaluation survey conducted in 2011 (after implementation of the smoke-free legislation), a total of 5614 participants were interviewed, of whom 5156(91.8 %) were willing to participate and 5135(91.5 %) provided complete data. The demographic characteristics were similar in both samples (Table 1) and no significant differences in gender (p = 0.255) and age (p = 0.313) were detected. Notably, both samples represent the adult population in Guangzhou sufficiently, with the exception of a significant oversampling of females aged 45–54 years in both samples and females aged 55–64 years only in the 2011 sample (Table 2). This discrepancy was adjusted by applying the weighing techniques.
Table 1

Demographic characteristics of all participants according to survey waves ((baseline vs evaluation survey), in Guangzhou, China

Variables

Number

Baseline survey

Evaluation survey

χ 2

p

n1

%

n2

%

Gender

 Male

4418

2129

43.5

2289

44.6

1.29

0.255

 Female

5617

2771

56.5

2846

55.4

  

Age(years)

 15–24

1713

816

16.6

897

17.5

5.93

0.313

 25–34

1921

926

18.9

995

19.4

  

 35–44

2060

1013

20.7

1047

20.4

  

 45–54

2022

997

20.3

1025

20.0

  

 55–64

1238

589

12.1

649

12.6

  

 65+

1081

559

11.4

522

10.1

  

All estimates are unweighted

n, number of participants in both surveys; n1, number of participants in the baseline survey; n2, number of participants surveyed in the evaluation survey; %, the proportion of participants surveyed

Table 2

Demographic characteristics of samples according to survey waves (baseline vs evaluation survey) and population according to a census in 2009 in Guangzhou, China

Gender and age

Baseline survey n1 (%)

Evaluation survey n2 (%)

2009 Populationa n (%)

Males

 15–24 years

433 (8.8)

496 (9.7)

722862 (10.6)

 25–34 years

409 (8.4)

522 (10.2)

660577 (9.7)

 35–44 years

427 (8.7)

496 (9.7)

696426 (10.2)

 45–54 years

363 (7.4)

342 (6.7)

601859 (8.8)

 55–64 years

229 (4.7)

220 (4.3)

390965 (5.7)

 65+ years

272 (5.5)

212 (4.1)

364886 (5.3)

Females

 15–24 years

383 (7.8)

401 (7.8)

667648 (9.8)

 25–34 years

517 (10.5)

473 (9.2)

631947 (9.3)

 35–44 years

586 (12.0)

551 (10.7)

693369 (10.2)

 45–54 years

634 (12.9)

683 (13.3)

573130 (8.4)

 55–64 years

360 (7.4)

429 (8.3)

399627 (5.8)

 65+ years

287 (5.9)

310 (6.0)

425490 (6.2)

All estimates are the proportion of participants surveyed and unweighted

Significant difference in baseline survey and evaluation survey samples from the 2009 population is highlighted by boldfacing and underlining them (p < 0.05 level)

aSource from Guangzhou Public Security Bureau

Smoking prevalence

Smoking prevalence, stratified by sex and age, is reported in Table 3 for both samples. The overall daily smoking rate decreased significantly after implementation of the smoke-free legislation (from 20.8 % in the baseline survey to 18.2 % in the evaluation survey; p < 0.01). The reduction in daily smoking rate achieved statistical significance among 15–24 year olds, also within age group, significant reductions in smoking were observed in males (from 27.1 % to 20.4 %; p = 0.016) and females (from 2.2 % to 0 %; p = 0.003). The change for occasional smokers remained relatively constant and was not statistically significant (1.2 % in baseline survey vs 1.1 % in the evaluation survey; p =0.706).
Table 3

Smoking prevalence (%) among adults according to survey waves (baseline vs evaluation survey), in Guangzhou, China

Age and gender

Daily smoker

Occasional smoker

Former smoker

Ever smoker

Quit ratio

Baseline

Evaluation

Baseline

Evaluation

Baseline

Evaluation

Baseline

Evaluation

Baseline

Evaluation

Total

20.8

18.2

1.2

1.1

3.7

4.2

25.6

23.5

14.5

17.9

 15–24 years

15.2

10.7

2.0

1.0

0.4

0.9

17.5

12.6

2.3

7.1

 25–34 years

19.3

16.4

1.4

1.1

1.4

2.5

22.1

20.0

6.3

12.5

 35–44 years

21.0

20.8

0.5

1.5

1.8

2.5

23.3

24.9

7.7

10.0

 45–54 years

28.4

29.6

1.0

1.0

7.1

4.9

36.4

35.5

19.5

13.8

 55–64 years

27.4

26.2

0.5

0.8

8.6

9.7

36.4

36.7

23.6

26.4

 65+ years

17.2

12.2

1.2

0.7

16.3

18.6

34.8

31.4

46.8

59.2

Males

37.4

34.3

2.0

1.9

6.6

7.5

45.7

43.6

14.4

17.2

 15–24 years

27.1

20.4

3.5

1.9

0.6

1.7

31.2

24.0

1.9

7.1

 25–34 years

35.5

29.8

2.6

1.7

2.7

4.4

40.8

35.9

6.6

12.3

 35–44 years

37.9

41.4

0.9

2.7

3.3

4.9

42.1

48.9

7.8

10.0

 45–54 years

48.6

52.9

1.7

1.8

12.4

8.0

62.7

62.7

19.8

12.8

 55–64 years

47.5

49.3

0.8

1.3

14.1

17.0

62.4

67.5

22.6

25.2

 65+ years

28.6

23.1

1.5

0.9

29.0

34.2

59.0

58.2

49.2

58.8

Females

1.6

0.5

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.7

2.1

1.5

14.3

46.7

 15–24 years

2.2

0.0

0.4

0.1

0.0

0.0

2.6

0.1

0.0

0.0

 25–34 years

0.6

0.6

0.0

0.4

0.0

0.3

0.7

1.3

0.0

23.1

 35–44 years

1.2

0.3

0.0

0.4

0.1

0.1

1.3

0.8

7.7

12.5

 45–54 years

2.0

0.8

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.9

2.2

1.8

9.1

50.0

 55–64 years

1.2

0.4

0.0

0.3

1.3

1.6

2.5

2.3

52.0

69.6

 65+ years

4.2

2.3

1.0

0.6

1.9

4.4

7.1

7.2

26.8

61.1

All estimates are weighted

Quit ratio, the ratio of former smokers to ever smokers

Significant difference between baseline and evaluation sample is highlighted by boldfacing and underlining them (p < 0.05 level)

Quit ratio

After implementation of the smoke-free legislation, the quit ratio increased significantly in male smokers (from 14.4 % to 17.2 %; p = 0.028; Table 3), and this increase was marked among 15–24, 25–34, and 65+ years old males. Of note, the quit ratio among 15–34 year old males increased because of increasing rates of former smokers and decreasing rates of ever-smokers, and the quit ratio among 65+ year old males increased only because of increasing rates of former smokers. After implementation of the smoke-free legislation, the quit ratio increased more than three-folds in female smokers (from 14.3 % to 46.7 %; p < 0.001; Table 3), and this increase was marked among 25+ year old females. The quit ratio among 45–64 year old females increased because of increasing rates of former smokers and decreasing rates of ever-smokers, the quit ratio among 24–34 and 65+ year old females increased only because of increasing rates of former smokers, but the quit ratio among 35–44 year old females increased only because of decreasing rates of ever-smokers. However, the quit ratio remained low among 15–44 year old males and females.

Smoking behaviors in different kinds of venues

In places where the full smoking ban were implemented, the self-reported overall smoking behaviors decreased significantly (from 36.4 % to 24.3 %; p < 0.05; Table 4). The largest impact was observed in both cultural venues (from 22.2 % to 8.7 %; p < 0.05) and public transport vehicles (from 10.7 % to 4.2 %; p < 0.05) with a 60.8 % reduction. A significant decline also occurred in government offices (from 48.3 % to 24.8 %; p < 0.05) with a 48.7 % reduction. Of note, smoking behaviors remained high in any types of partial smoking ban places (Table 4), and a significant decline was observed only in workplaces (from 78.8 % to 64.5 %; p < 0.05), restaurants (from 85.3 % to 75.1 %; p < 0.05), and hotels (from 83.4 % to 75.6 %; p < 0.05). Although the smoke-free regulation did not cover in home environment, the legislation did not lead to more smoking behaviors in homes (91.0 % in baseline survey vs 89.4 % in evaluation survey; p = 0.138; Table 4). It was noteworthy that smoking in homes remained high.
Table 4

Self-reported smoking of current smokers in the last 2 weeks according to survey waves (baseline vs evaluation survey), in Guangzhou, China

Extent of smoking restriction, venues

Baseline survey

Evaluation survey

Reduction (%)

aOR(95 % CI) for smoking ban

p

n1

Smoking (%)

n2

Smoking (%)

Full smoking ban

763

36.4

839

24.3

33.2

0.56(0.38 to 0.82)

0.022

 Cultural venues

168

22.2

194

8.7

60.8

0.34(0.17 to 0.68)

0.022

 Public transport vehicles

582

10.7

698

4.2

60.8

0.38(0.20 to 0.73)

0.023

 Government offices

165

48.3

158

24.8

48.7

0.35(0.13 to 0.93)

0.044

 Commercial venues

584

15.8

723

7.6

51.9

0.42(0.16 to 1.07)

0.057

 Medical facilities

210

21.5

236

14.0

34.9

0.58(0.26 to 1.31)

0.102

 Stadiums

184

42.6

189

29.6

30.5

0.62(0.26 to 1.46)

0.137

 Primary/secondary schools

213

21.2

193

19.8

6.6

1.08(0.34 to 3.44)

0.813

 Universities

91

31.4

99

29.4

6.4

0.96(0.49 to 1.86)

0.802

Partial smoking ban

842

89.6

873

90.4

−0.9

1.09(0.63 to 1.91)

0.562

 Workplaces

510

78.8

581

64.5

18.1

0.46(0.30 to 0.70)

0.015

 Restaurants

629

85.3

745

75.1

12.0

0.49(0.26 to 0.91)

0.038

 Hotels

188

83.4

230

75.6

9.4

0.67(0.47 to 0.96)

0.041

 Cafes/bars/nightclubs

298

90.5

333

89.7

0.9

1.09(0.31 to 3.80)

0.804

 Amusement parks

425

66.4

562

63.7

4.1

0.85(0.48 to 1.50)

0.349

 Waiting room of transport vehicles

542

48.6

680

49.9

−2.7

1.05(0.43 to 2.54)

0.838

No ban

 Home

882

91.0

877

89.4

1.8

0.78(0.51 to 1.21)

0.138

aOR, adjusted OR; n, number of visitors who visited venues in the last 2 weeks. Smoking(%), weighted ratio of smokers (who smoked in venues) to visitors

Gender and age have been controlled for in the multiple logistic regression models. The survey sample size of current smokers (n) is unweighted while other estimates are weighted

Discussion

After the implementation of the partial smoke-free legislation began in September 2010 in Guangzhou, China, the self-reported smoking behaviors reduced more significantly in full smoking ban places (from 36.4 % to 24.3 %) than in partial smoking ban places (89.6 % in the baseline survey vs 90.4 % in the evaluation survey), and this legislation did not lead to more smoking in homes (91.0 % vs 89.4 %). The daily smoking prevalence declined significantly (from 20.8 % to 18.2 %), especially among 15–24 year olds, and the quit ratios increased significantly (from 14.5 % to 17.9 %). But smoking in banned places and the home environment still remained high, and the quit ratios remained low.

Studies conducted in several countries have shown that smoke-free legislations can reduce smoking-related behaviors [58, 11, 12]. The reduction in smoking occurs, likely because the smoke-free legislation increases support for regulating smoking, reduces the social acceptability of smoking, limits opportunities for smoking, and leads to less socially cued smoking [1214]. Moreover, there is evidence that the comprehensive smoke-free legislation (i.e., 100 % smoke-free legislation, without designated smoking rooms) has a greater effect on reducing smoking behaviors than the partial smoke-free legislation [15, 16]. This study found a significant reduction in smoking behaviors in full smoking ban places, especially among cultural venues and public transport vehicles. Consistent with previous studies [1416], it is disappointing that smoking behaviors in these venues were not eliminated, but were still at a high level after implementation of the legislation. It was noteworthy that smoking behaviors in government offices and stadiums started from a high level in the baseline survey (43-48 %) and was still high in the evaluation survey (25-30 %). This observation may be due to poor compliance with the smoke-free legislation in these venues. More disappointing was that smoking behaviors in partial smoking ban places (89.6 % vs 90.4 %) were still remarkably high after the implementation of a partial smoke-free legislation, due to the permissiveness of setting smoking rooms in these places. Notably, very few respondents (1-2 %) reported smoking in workplaces, pubs, cafes or other enclosed public places in England after the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free legislation covering all enclosed public places and workplaces [17].

It is quite disappointing from a public health point of view, given that in both types of venues there were only small decreases of smoking in Guangzhou following the smoke-free legislation. One of the important reasons is that the Guangzhou government did not introduce a comprehensive smoke-free legislation since policymakers regarded the implementation of a partial smoke-free law as more feasible and practical in Guangzhou than a total ban. To note, a full smoking ban implemented in certain venues produced comparatively low smoking rates (10.7 %-48.3 %), while venues with a partial smoking ban revealed high smoking rates (48.6 %-90.5 %), indicating an unwillingness of the policymakers to implement tougher policies. The effectiveness of a smoke-free legislation also required enforcement efforts and compliance from smokers and managers in venues. In Guangzhou, the law enforcement departments, tasked with smoking control, have been ineffective in their efforts. To our surprise, no one (including smokers and managers in the venues) was fined until May 2011, 9 months after the implementation of a smoke-free legislation. This study showed high rates of smoking in public places during the last 2 weeks, indicating low compliance with the smoking regulation. Therefore, increasing the compliance among smokers is the first step with a possible solution to include increasing the fine amount which is only RMB ¥50 (US $7.8) according to the current legislation. In addition, the managers in venues should take the opportunity to educate staff and enforce the mandate. An extensive and growing body of literature has shown that smoke-free policies have no economic impact on restaurants, pubs and other segments of the hospitality industry [18, 19]. Findings from the present study, along with the published findings [5, 6, 10, 15], indicate that a partial smoke-free legislation has had a weak impact on smoking cessation, but a comprehensive smoke-free legislation can substantially attenuate smoking prevalence without having negative economic impacts on the local businesses.

It was noteworthy that the implementation of a smoke-free legislation in Guangzhou did not lead to more smoking behaviors in homes. This finding is in agreement with the previous associations observed between smoke-free public places and a reduction in smoking practices at home [17, 2022], and suggest that smoke-free public places did not lead to displacement of smoking from public places into homes. In addition, findings from the international tobacco control policy evaluation project in Europe and America also suggested that smoke-free public places facilitated rather than inhibited the introduction of smoke-free homes [20, 21]. These results supported the social diffusion hypothesis that more restrictive rules regarding smoking in public places would increase the likelihood that individuals would adopt voluntary home smoking restrictions [20]. The rate of smoking in homes in our study (from 91.0 % to 89.4 %) was much higher than those found in Albania (from 48 % to 33 %) and England (from 65 % to 55 %) [10, 17]. These findings further add support to the enactment of comprehensive smoke-free legislation in public places, and at the same time highlighted the urgent need for educational interventions and campaigns promoting smoking cessation at home and voluntary changes in home smoking rules, especially among those households with infants, children, and adult non-smokers.

Previous studies found that the implementation of the comprehensive smoke-free legislation in England did not have a substantial impact on smoking prevalence in adults [17, 23]. Despite the implementation of new tobacco control policies in Albanian, the smoking prevalence among males did not decrease, and smoking rates among females in general and in males aged 18–29 years continued to grow [10]. However, results from the 2002 to 2008 National Surveys from the US Census Bureau indicated that smoke-free laws and state tobacco control programs were effective strategies for curbing youth smoking [24]. Consistent with the above US study, the present study found that the reduction in the proportion of daily smokers was significant among 15–24 year olds for both genders, suggesting that a smoke-free legislation in Guangzhou is an effective strategy for curbing youth smoking. However, longer follow-up time may be needed to detect trends over time.

Previous research indicates that the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free legislation in Ireland and England had positive effects on quit attempts and quit successes respectively, and a partial smoke-free legislation in the Netherlands had no effect on quit attempts or quit successes [16, 25]. In Guangzhou, the quit ratios in most age groups increased after the implementation of a smoke-free legislation, but the quit ratios remained low compared to those in the countries with advanced tobacco control policies. The quit ratio was only 17.9 % in our evaluation survey, which was much lower than the 51.8 % found in the United States [26]. A study conducted in Hong Kong has suggested that smoke-free legislation that did not result in high rates of smoking cessation might displace smoking into homes [27]. Therefore, introduction of free tobacco cessation services, which are not currently available in Guangzhou, is urgently needed. In addition, quit rates might be further increased through better enforcement of the advertising bans and smoke-free legislation, as well as increasing the tax on cigarettes [10].

This study processes two strengths. The surveys were based on probability-based samples using standardized questions and allowed us to evaluate the different impacts of smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviors in full, partial and no smoking ban places at the same time. Additionally, to account for sample design and weighting in the estimation procedures, the statistical analyses were conducted with weighted data. However, some limitations should be considered when interpreting our results. First, the information was based on self-reports, and the findings may be susceptible to some bias. However, estimates obtained from population-based surveys that use self-reports are generally valid, apart from when there is a high demand for abstinence [28]. Second, the use of repeated cross-sectional data to assess the effectiveness of the smoke-free legislation may introduce bias, given that there may be differences in respondents between the two surveys. However, no significant differences in demographic characteristics (e.g., age and gender) were observed, and weighted data were used to adjust for the differences. Third, we found no significant differences between participants and non-participants in terms of sex, but the differences of age and smoking were uncertain since age and smoking were unable to be obtained from non-participants. This may have impacted the results for potential selection bias. Finally, this study lacks data to measure sufficiently what trends in smoking prevalence might have been in the absence of smoke-free legislation. Several national surveys conducted in China have indicated that in absence of a national smoke-free legislation, the smoking prevalence among adolescents had increased in the last decade in China [2932]. Additionally, before the implementation of smoke-free legislation in Guangzhou, smoking prevalence among young women in this city increased from 1.2 % in 2008 [33] to 2.6 % in our baseline survey. This trend of escalation in smoking prevalence in Guangzhou and at a national level in China in the last decade suggests that the reduction in smoking prevalence observed in our 2011 sample is likely due to the implementation of smoke-free legislation in 2009.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the partial smoke-free legislation implemented in Guangzhou, China has some effect on curbing smoking behaviors in places with a full smoking ban (such as cultural venues, public transport vehicles and government offices), reducing daily smoking prevalence in youth, and increasing the quit ratios in most age groups. However, smoking behaviors in public places and homes were still high and the quit ratios remained low after the implementation of a partial smoke-free legislation. These findings point out the urgent need for a comprehensive smoke-free legislation covering all public places in Guangzhou. Simultaneously, educational interventions and campaigns promoting smoking cessation and adoption of voluntary smoke free-home policies need to occur.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Bloomberg Philanthropies’ tobacco control programme (No. U-China-3-02).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Guangdong Pharmaceutical University
(2)
Guangzhou Association on Tobacco Control
(3)
College of Public Health, East Tennessee State University

References

  1. WHO. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic: 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43818/1/9789241596282_eng.pdf. Accessed may 15, 2014.Google Scholar
  2. WHO. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic: 2011. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44616/1/9789240687813_eng.pdf. Accessed may 20, 2014.Google Scholar
  3. GATS Collaborative Group. Tobacco use in 3 billion individuals from 16 countries: an analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional household surveys. Lancet. 2012;380(9842):668–79.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Gu D, Kelly TN, Wu X, Chen J, Samet JM, Huang JF, et al. Mortality attributable to smoking in China. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(2):150–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gleich F, Mons U, Po¨ tschke-Langer M. Air contamination due to smoking in German restaurants, bars, and other venues - Before and after the implementation of a partial smoking ban. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(11):1155–60.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Naiman A, Glazier R, Moineddin R. Is there an impact of public smoking bans on self-reported smoking status and exposure to secondhand smoke? BMC Public Health. 2011;11:146.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. MJ L´ p, Nebot M, Schiaffino A, Pérez-Ríos M, Fu M, Ariza C, et al. Two-year impact of the Spanish smoking law on exposure to secondhand smoke: Evidence of the failure of the ’Spanish model’. Tob Control. 2012;21(4):407–11.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrante D, Linetzky B, Virgolini M, Schoj V, Apelberg B. Reduction in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome after the successful implementation of 100 % smoke-free legislation in Argentina: A comparison with partial smoking restrictions. Tob Control. 2012;21(4):402–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Ye X, Yao Z, Gao Y, Xu Y, Xu Y, Zhu Z, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure in different types of venues: before and after the implementation of smoke-free legislation in Guangzhou, China. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e004273.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Zaloshnja E, Ross H, Levy DT. The impact of tobacco control policies in Albania. Tob Control. 2010;19(6):463–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang J, Zheng R, Emery S. Assessing the impact of the national smoking ban in indoor public places in China: evidence from quit smoking related online searches. PLoS One. 2013;8(6):e65577.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Macy JT, Middlestadt SE, Seo DC, Kolbe LJ, Jay SJ. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to explore the relation between smoke-free air laws and quitting intentions. Health Educ Behav. 2012;39(1):27–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown A, Moodie C, Hastings G. A longitudinal study of policy effect (smoke-free legislation) on smoking norms: ITC Scotland/United Kingdom. Nicotine Tob Res. 2009;11(8):924–32.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Edwards R, Thomson G, Wilson N, Waa A, Bullen C, O'Dea D, et al. After the smoke has cleared: evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand. Tob Control. 2008;17(1):e2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Thrasher JF, Swayampakala K, Arillo-Santillán E, Sebrié E, Walsemann KM, Bottai M. Differential impact of local and federal smoke-free legislation in Mexico: a longitudinal study among adult smokers. Salud Publica Mex. 2010;52 Suppl 2:S244–53.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Nagelhout GE, de Vries H, Boudreau C, Allwright S, McNeill A, van den Putte B, et al. Comparative impact of smoke-free legislation on smoking cessation in three European countries. Eur J Public Health. 2012;22(Suppl1):4–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee JT, Glantz SA, Millett C. Effect of smoke-free legislation on adult smoking behaviour in England in the 18 months following implementation. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20933.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Melberg HO, Lund KE. Do smoke-free laws affect revenues in pubs and restaurants? Eur J Health Econ. 2012;13(1):93–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Scollo M, Lal A, Hyland A, Glantz S. Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry. Tob Control. 2003;12(1):13–20.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Borland R, Yong HH, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Anderson S, Fong GT. Determinants and consequences of smoke-free homes: findings from the international tobacco control (ITC) four country survey. Tob Control. 2006;15(Suppl3):iii42–50.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Mons U, Nagelhout GE, Allwright S, Guignard R, van den Putte B, Willemsen MC, et al. Impact of national smoke-free legislation on home smoking bans: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Europe Surveys. Tob Control. 2013;22(e1):e2–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Bhaumik S. Ban on smoking in workplaces in India has led to more smoke free homes. BMJ. 2013;346:f2186.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Elton PJ, Campbell P. Smoking prevalence in a north-west town following the introduction of Smoke-free England. J Public Health. 2008;30(4):415–20.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrelly MC, Loomis BR, Han B, Gfroerer J, Kuiper N, Couzens GL, et al. A comprehensive examination of the influence of state tobacco control programs and policies on youth smoking. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(3):549–55.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hackshaw L, McEwen A, West R, Bauld L. Quit attempts in response to smoke-free legislation in England. Tob Control. 2010;19(2):160–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Number of smokers and number of smokers who have quit. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking/how_to_quit/you_can_quit/alone/.htm. Accessed may 20, 2014.
  27. Ho SY, Wang MP, Lo WS, Mak KK, Lai HK, Thomas GN, et al. Comprehensive smoke-free legislation and displacement of smoking into the homes of young children in Hong Kong. Tob Control. 2010;19(2):129–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jung-Choi KH, Khang YH, Cho HJ. Hidden female smokers in Asia: a comparison of self-reported with cotinine-verified smoking prevalence rates in representative national data from an Asian population. Tob Control. 2011;21(6):536–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ho MG, Ma S, Chai W, Xia W, Yang G, Novotny TE. Smoking among rural and urban young women in China. Tob Control. 2010;19(1):13–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang G, Fan L, Tan J, Qi G, Zhang Y, Samet JM, et al. Smoking in China: findings of the 1996 national prevalence survey. JAMA. 1999;282(13):1247–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Yang G, Ma J, Chen AP, Brown S, Taylor CE, Samet JM. Smoking among adolescents in China: 1998 survey findings. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33(5):1103–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson CA, Palmer PH, Chou CP, Pang Z, Zhou D, Dong L, et al. Tobacco use among youth and adults in Mainland China: the China seven cities study. Public Health. 2006;120(12):1156–69.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Lei C, Xu YX, Xu Y, Ying CM, Yang Y. Cross-sectional study of tobacco use of female high school and college students in Guangzhou. Chin J Sch Health. 2013;34(6):651–4.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Ye et al. 2015

Advertisement