- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Tobacco smoke pollution"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Asking the Right Questions About Secondhand Smoke(Oxford University Press, 2021) Klein, Jonathan D.; Chamberlin, Margaret E.; Kress, Elizabeth A.; Geraci, Mark W.; Rosenblatt, Susan; Boykan, Rachel; Jenssen, Brian; Rosenblatt, Stanley M.; Milberger, Sharon; Adams, William G.; Goldstein, Adam O.; Rigotti, Nancy A.; Hovell, Melbourne F.; Holm, Amanda L.; Vandivier, Richard W.; Croxton, Thomas L.; Young, Patricia L.; Blissard, Lani; Jewell, Kate; Richardson, Leisa; Ostrow, John; Resnick, Elissa A.; Medicine, School of MedicineIntroduction: Despite knowledge about major health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) exposure, systematic incorporation of SHS screening and counseling in clinical settings has not occurred. Methods: A three-round modified Delphi Panel of tobacco control experts was convened to build consensus on the screening questions that should be asked and identify opportunities and barriers to SHS exposure screening and counseling. The panel considered four questions: (1) what questions should be asked about SHS exposure; (2) what are the top priorities to advance the goal of ensuring that these questions are asked; (3) what are the barriers to achieving these goals; and (4) how might these barriers be overcome. Each panel member submitted answers to the questions. Responses were summarized and successive rounds were reviewed by panel members for consolidation and prioritization. Results: Panelists agreed that both adults and children should be screened during clinical encounters by asking if they are exposed or have ever been exposed to smoke from any tobacco products in their usual environment. The panel found that consistent clinician training, quality measurement or other accountability, and policy and electronic health records interventions were needed to successfully implement consistent screening. Conclusions: The panel successfully generated screening questions and identified priorities to improve SHS exposure screening. Policy interventions and stakeholder engagement are needed to overcome barriers to implementing effective SHS screening. Implications: In a modified Delphi panel, tobacco control and clinical prevention experts agreed that all adults and children should be screened during clinical encounters by asking if they are exposed or have ever been exposed to smoke from tobacco products. Consistent training, accountability, and policy and electronic health records interventions are needed to implement consistent screening. Increasing SHS screening will have a significant impact on public health and costs.Item Impact of smoke-free ordinance strength on smoking prevalence and lung cancer incidence(PLOS, 2021-04-16) Nguyen, Ryan H.; Vater, Laura B.; Timsina, Lava R.; Durm, Gregory A.; Rupp, Katelin; Wright, Keylee; Spitznagle, Miranda H.; Paul, Brandy; Jalal, Shadia I.; Carter-Harris, Lisa; Hudmon, Karen S.; Hanna, Nasser H.; Loehrer, Patrick J.; Ceppa, DuyKhanh P.; Surgery, School of MedicineBackground: Smoke-free ordinances (SFO) have been shown to be effective public health interventions, but there is limited data on the impact SFO on lung cancer outcomes. We explored the effect of county-level SFO strength with smoking prevalence and lung cancer incidence in Indiana. Methods: We obtained county-level lung cancer incidence from the Indiana State Cancer Registry and county-level characteristics from the Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Commission's policy database between 1995 and 2016. Using generalized estimating equations, we performed multivariable analyses of smoking prevalence and age-adjusted lung cancer rates with respect to the strength of smoke-free ordinances at the county level over time. Results: Of Indiana's 92 counties, 24 had a SFO by 2011. In 2012, Indiana enacted a state-wide SFO enforcing at least moderate level SFO protection. Mean age-adjusted lung cancer incidence per year was 76.8 per 100,000 population and mean smoking prevalence per year was 25% during the study period. Counties with comprehensive or moderate SFO had a smoking prevalence 1.2% (95% CI [-1.88, -0.52]) lower compared with counties with weak or no SFO. Counties that had comprehensive or moderate SFO also had an 8.4 (95% CI [-11.5, -5.3]) decrease in new lung cancer diagnosis per 100,000 population per year compared with counties that had weak or no SFO. Conclusion: Counties with stronger smoke-free air ordinances were associated with decreased smoking prevalence and fewer new lung cancer cases per year. Strengthening SFO is paramount to decreasing lung cancer incidence.