Background: This study examined whether immigrants were less likely to be covered by a smoke-free workplace policy and whether workplace smoking policies garnered comparable associations with smoking for immigrants and for those born in the USA.
Methods: Investigators applied multiple logistic regression to the 2001–2 Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplement among US indoor workers (n = 85 784). The study examined first, whether nativity (immigrants vs US born) was independently associated with smoke-free policy coverage, and second, whether the smoke-free policy association with current smoking was differential by nativity (effect modification).
Results: Immigrants were less likely to work in smoke-free workplaces than those born in the USA; however, occupation and industry accounted for these disparities. Employment in a workplace that was not smoke free was associated with higher odds of smoking (vs smoke-free workplaces), both before (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.74 to 1.92) and after (OR 1.36, CI 1.29 to 1.44) covariate adjustment among the US born, but associations were weaker among immigrants (OR 1.39, CI 1.20 to 1.61, unadjusted; OR 1.15 CI 0.97 to 1.35 adjusted). Worker industry partly explained (16% of) the weaker policy-smoking association among immigrants, while other socioeconomic variables reduced the policy-smoking association without explaining the disparity.
Conclusions: The patchwork of US workplace smoking restriction policy at different governmental levels, combined with a voluntary regime among some employers, generates coverage inequalities. Workplace smoke-free policies may be less effective for immigrants, and this is related to differential coverage by such policies due to occupational segregation. Understanding the complex patterns of the social context of smoking is important for understanding how policy interventions might have heterogeneous effects for different demographic groups.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding Financial support for this study was provided to TLO by a 2-year Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) and American Legacy Foundation (Legacy) STEP-UP to Tobacco Control Dissertation Grant L2010-02. DAG was supported by National Cancer Institute grant 1 R03 CA093198-01 and a grant from the ASPH and Legacy (L4002-01/03; DAG, PI). SVS was supported by the National Institutes of Health Career Development Award (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute, 1 K25 HL081275). The conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of ASPH, Legacy Foundation, Legacy Foundation staff, or Legacy’s Board of Directors.Work was undertaken while TLO was a doctoral student at Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Society, Human Development, & Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval Approval to conduct this study was provided by the Harvard School of Public Health Human Subjects Committee (#P11687–101).
Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.