Preventive medicine · 2012
Implementation and impact of anti-smoking interventions in three prisons in the absence of appropriate legislation.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Etter Jean-François, Ritter Catherine, Christie Derek H, Kunz Martina, Rieder Jean-Pierre, Humair Jean-Paul, Wolff Hans, Eytan Ariel, Wahl Corinne, Elger Bernice
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability and impact of anti-smoking policies in three prisons in Switzerland.
METHODS: A before-after intervention study in A) an open prison for sentenced prisoners, B) a closed prison for sentenced prisoners, and C) a prison for pretrial detainees. Prisoners and staff were surveyed before (2009, n=417) and after (2010-2011, n=228) the interventions. Medical staff were trained to address tobacco dependence systematically in prisoners. In prison A, a partial smoking ban was extended. No additional protection against second-hand smoke was feasible in prisons B and C.
RESULTS: In prison A, more prisoners reported receiving medical help to quit smoking in 2011 (20%) than in 2009 (4%, p=0.012). In prison A, prisoners and staff reported less exposure to second-hand smoke in 2011 than in 2009: 31% of prisoners were exposed to smoke at workplaces in 2009 vs 8% in 2011 (p=0.001); in common rooms: 43% vs 8%, (p<0.001). No changes were observed in prisons B and C.
CONCLUSIONS: Reinforcement of non-smoking rules was possible in only one of the three prisons but had an impact on exposure to tobacco smoke and medical help to quit. Implementing anti-smoking policies in prisons is difficult in the absence of appropriate legislation.
METHODS: A before-after intervention study in A) an open prison for sentenced prisoners, B) a closed prison for sentenced prisoners, and C) a prison for pretrial detainees. Prisoners and staff were surveyed before (2009, n=417) and after (2010-2011, n=228) the interventions. Medical staff were trained to address tobacco dependence systematically in prisoners. In prison A, a partial smoking ban was extended. No additional protection against second-hand smoke was feasible in prisons B and C.
RESULTS: In prison A, more prisoners reported receiving medical help to quit smoking in 2011 (20%) than in 2009 (4%, p=0.012). In prison A, prisoners and staff reported less exposure to second-hand smoke in 2011 than in 2009: 31% of prisoners were exposed to smoke at workplaces in 2009 vs 8% in 2011 (p=0.001); in common rooms: 43% vs 8%, (p<0.001). No changes were observed in prisons B and C.
CONCLUSIONS: Reinforcement of non-smoking rules was possible in only one of the three prisons but had an impact on exposure to tobacco smoke and medical help to quit. Implementing anti-smoking policies in prisons is difficult in the absence of appropriate legislation.