Congress logo
Back to Conference page

The 13th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health

Building capacity for a tobacco-free world

July 12-15, 2006, Washington, DC, USA



Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 8:45 AM
198-2

Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: before and after study (All Ireland Bar Study)

Shane P. A. Allwright, PhD, MSPH, BAMod1, Gillian Paul, RGM, PHN, MSc1, Lisa Pursell, BSc, PhD2, Bernie J. Mullally, BSc, MA3, and Eamon O'Kane, BA4. (1) Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland, Trinity College Centre for Health Sciences, AMNCH, Tallaght, Dublin, 24, Ireland, (2) Department of Health Promotion, National University of Ireland, Galway, 16 Distillery Road, Galway, Ireland, (3) Epidemiology & Public Health, University College Cork, Brookfield Health Sciences Complex, College Road, Cork, Ireland, (4) Derry Healthy Cities, The Old Nursing Home, Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry, N. Ireland, BT47 6SB, United Kingdom

Objective: To compare exposure to secondhand smoke and respiratory health in bar workersin the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI) before and after the introduction of smoke-free workplace legislation in the RoI.

Methods: Salivary cotinine concentration, self reported exposure to secondhand smoke, and respiratory and sensory irritation symptoms were compared before and after the legislation in bar workers in three areas in the RoI (intervention) and one area in NI (control).

Results: 329 bar workers were enrolled at baseline; 249 (76%) were followed up one year later; 158 were non-smokers both at baseline and follow-up. In non-smoking bar workers in the RoI, salivary cotinine concentrations dropped by 80% after the smoke-free law (from median 5.1 ng/ml (interquartile range 3.2 to 7.6ng/ml) to 0.9 ng/ml (0.5 to 2.3ng/ml) in contrast with a 20% decline in NI over the same period (from median 4.5ng/ml (1.8 to 10.4ng/ml) to 3.6 ng/ml (2.3 to 6.0ng/ml)). Changes in self reported exposure to secondhand smoke were consistent with the changes in cotinine. Reporting any respiratory symptom declined significantly in the RoI (down 16.7%, 95% confidence interval –26.1% to –7.3%) but not in NI (0% difference, –32.7% to 32.7%). After adjustment for confounding, respiratory symptoms in non-smokers declined significantly more in the RoI than in NI and the decline in cotinine concentration was twice as great. Neither cotinine nor respiratory symptoms declined in smokers in either region. The smoke-free law in the RoI protects non-smoking bar workers from exposure to secondhand smoke.