Analysis of non-compliance with smoke-free legislation in Russia.

Liudmila Zasimova
Author Information
  1. Liudmila Zasimova: Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Economic Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), 28/2, Room 2214 Shabolovka Str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119049. Lzasimova@hse.ru. ORCID

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The study examined the smokers' non-compliance rates in indoor public places in Russia and the sociodemographic factors associated with non-compliance.
METHODS: Univariate analysis and logistic regression models were performed using cross-sectional data from a representative sample of Russian adults (N = 4006).
RESULTS: 27.2% of Russian smokers did not comply with smoke-free bans. Non-compliance was attributed to sociodemographic characteristics of smokers, mainly to the number of cigarettes smoked per day, regular alcohol consumption, being aged between 15 and 34 years, being in the highest income group and living in an urban area. Neither the sex, nor the family status of smokers exerted a statistically significant affiliation with non-compliance. Higher rates of non-compliance were observed in restaurants, cafes, bars and nightclubs, common domestic premises of apartment buildings and indoor workplaces. Violations on public transport, in governmental buildings, health and sport facilities, colleges and universities were less common.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to revise the methods of enforcement with respect to sociodemographic characteristics of smokers associated with non-compliance in public places where violations are widespread.

Keywords

References

  1. Tob Control. 2006 Jun;15 Suppl 3:iii34-41 [PMID: 16754945]
  2. Addiction. 2008 Jun;103(6):1019-26 [PMID: 18482425]
  3. Scand J Public Health. 2009 Aug;37(6):632-9 [PMID: 19451199]
  4. Int J Public Health. 2010 Dec;55(6):619-26 [PMID: 20890629]
  5. Soc Sci Med. 2011 May;72(10):1643-51 [PMID: 21497973]
  6. Nicotine Tob Res. 2012 Apr;14(4):495-500 [PMID: 22080584]
  7. Int J Public Health. 2012 Oct;57(5):769-75 [PMID: 22314541]
  8. Tob Control. 2012 Mar;21(2):154-61 [PMID: 22345239]
  9. BMC Public Health. 2013 Jan 23;13:64 [PMID: 23339756]
  10. J Safety Res. 2013 Sep;46:1-11 [PMID: 23932680]
  11. Int J Public Health. 2014 Oct;59(5):859-66 [PMID: 25135012]
  12. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2014 Sep 1;1(3):239-249 [PMID: 25328861]
  13. BMC Public Health. 2015 Aug 05;15:744 [PMID: 26242915]
  14. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Dec 11;13(12): [PMID: 27973436]
  15. Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1345-1422 [PMID: 28919119]
  16. Law Hum Behav. 2018 Apr;42(2):167-180 [PMID: 29672096]
  17. Accid Anal Prev. 1998 Jul;30(4):417-24 [PMID: 9666238]

Grants

  1. 33(2018)/National Research University Higher School of Economics

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cross-Sectional Studies
Female
Guideline Adherence
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Restaurants
Russia
Smoke-Free Policy
Socioeconomic Factors
Universities
Workplace
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0non-compliancesmokerspublicRussiasociodemographicratesindoorplacesassociatedRussiansmoke-freeNon-compliancecharacteristicscommonbuildingslegislationOBJECTIVES:studyexaminedsmokers'factorsMETHODS:Univariateanalysislogisticregressionmodelsperformedusingcross-sectionaldatarepresentativesampleadultsN = 4006RESULTS:272%complybansattributedmainlynumbercigarettessmokedperdayregularalcoholconsumptionaged1534 yearshighestincomegrouplivingurbanareaNeithersexfamilystatusexertedstatisticallysignificantaffiliationHigherobservedrestaurantscafesbarsnightclubsdomesticpremisesapartmentworkplacesViolationstransportgovernmentalhealthsportfacilitiescollegesuniversitieslessCONCLUSIONS:needrevisemethodsenforcementrespectviolationswidespreadAnalysisBansSecond-handsmokeSmoke-freeSmoking

Similar Articles

Cited By