Smoke-Free Outdoor Seating Policy: 1-Year Changes in Compliance of Bars and Restaurants in Philadelphia

1Citations
Citations of this article
32Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate changes in compliance with a smoke-free outdoor seating policy before and after passage of a local regulation in 2015, which reinterpreted Philadelphia’s Clean Indoor Air Worker Protection Law to include outdoor seating areas of food or beverage establishments. Design: Natural experiment. Setting: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Sample: Food or beverage establishments (N = 108). Establishments were comprised of sit-down restaurants, cafes, quick-service restaurants, and bars. Measures: Presence of outdoor smoking and smoking-related litter on a given day were measured as binary variables. A geographic information system–based survey developed for this study was used to collect observational data. Analysis: Logistic regressions were used to determine the change in odds of observing outdoor smoking and smoking-related litter on a given day from baseline (preregulation) to follow-up (postregulation). Results: Compliance with smoke-free outdoor seating increased from 84.5% to 95.4% after passage and implementation of the regulation. Results showed a significant 75% decrease (odds ratio [OR]: = 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08-0.67) in odds of outdoor smoking and a slight decrease in smoking-related litter (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.39-1.65) at follow-up in establishments overall. However, at baseline, bars had higher odds of outdoor smoking (OR: 2.68, 95% CI: 0.57-12.72) and smoking-related litter (OR: 4.09, 95% CI:, 1.87-9.49) compared to sit-down restaurants. Conclusion: Results suggest there is high compliance with low-cost, low-burden, smoke-free outdoor seating policy and that enforcement is best targeted toward bars.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ocampo, P., Coffman, R., & Lawman, H. (2020). Smoke-Free Outdoor Seating Policy: 1-Year Changes in Compliance of Bars and Restaurants in Philadelphia. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117119869113

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free