The Effect of Worksite Tobacco Policies on Smoking Among Young Latino Workers Funded by the Minnesot

1
The Effect of Worksite Tobacco Policies on
Smoking Among Young Latino WorkersFunded by
the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against
Tobacco

• Presenter
• Elizabeth Kind, Park Nicollet Institute
• Team
• Paul Terry, Park Nicollet Institute
• Ted Wegleitner, Park Nicollet Institute
• Carolyn Peterson, Park Nicollet Institute
• Sue Adlis, Biostatistician, Park Nicollet
  Institute
• Claudia Fuentes, HACER
• Amy Stenoien, HACER
• Andres Flores, CLUES
• Judy Peterson, CLUES

2
Overview

• The Background
• The Intervention
• The Results
• Overall
• Comparing Hispanics with Non-Hispanics

3
The Background
4
Tobacco Concerns

• Nationally, smoking rates among Hispanic/Latino
  adolescents are higher than any other group.
• Locally, Latino youth smoking rate is 28.

5
Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA)

• Enacted in 1975
• restricted smoking in offices
• Amended in 2002
• included factories, warehouses, and other work
  places
• Amended September 2003
• ventilation requirements in smoking- permitted
  areas

6
Objectives

• Create awareness of consequences of tobacco use
  and secondhand smoke
• Help develop and implement smoke-free policies
• Provide tobacco cessation resources

7
Company Recruitment

• Goal was 6 companies in rural Minnesota with 25
  or more Latino/Hispanic employees
• 150 companies were approached
• Managers were interested in smoking cessation

8
The Intervention
9
Committee Work

• Each company formed a policy task force or used
  an existing safety committee
• Task force consisted of
• smokers and non-smokers
• employees and management
• Hispanic/Latino representation
• Met 3 to 4 times over course of implementation
  to
• identify communications methods
• outline implementation timeline
• train committee on cessation resources
  discuss grant/policy plans

10
Tobacco Awareness Displays

• Lunchrooms or high-traffic areas
• English- and Spanish-speaking health educators
• All shifts
• Content
• Pharmaceutical supports for cessation
• Secondhand smoke and benefits of quitting
• Cessation ideas and coping with withdrawal

11
Data Collection Methods

• Pre-Post written questionnaire
• Questionnaire in English Spanish
• Onsite data collection
• No follow-up

12
Selected Survey Objectives

• Awareness of companys policy
• Satisfaction with companys policy
• Awareness of dangers of second- hand smoke
• Current smoking status

13
The Results

• Total Population

14
Demographics

• 70 male
• Average age 39 Hispanic - 35, Non-Hispanic -
  42
• Slightly over 1/3 were Hispanic/Latino
• 36 less than high school education 36
  completed high school
• 22 speak only Spanish
• 47 worked at company more than 5 years, 26
  between 1 and 5 years
• 34 smoked cigarettes

15
My company is concerned about the hazards of
smoking to its employees health. (P lt 0.001)
16
My company has enforced the present tobacco
policy to my satisfaction. (P lt 0.001)
17
My company has done a good job of helping
smokers to quit smoking. (P lt 0.001)
18
How harmful is tobacco smoke to adult
non-smokers who breathe it regularly? (P lt
0.001)
19
How harmful is tobacco smoke to children
non-smokers who breathe it regularly? (P lt 0.01)
20
How harmful is tobacco smoke to the unborn child
if the mother smokes during pregnancy? (n.s.)
21
Changes in Pack/Day Tobacco Use (P lt 0.05)
22
The Results

• Comparison of Hispanic with Non-Hispanic

23
Hispanic vs. Non-HispanicStrongly Agree Company
is Concerned about Hazards of Smoking to
Employees(P lt 0.001)
24
Hispanic Vs. Non-HispanicStrongly Agree Company
Has Done a Good Job of Helping Smokers Quit (P
lt 0.001)
25
Hispanic vs. Non-HispanicTobacco Smoke
Extremely Harmful to Adult Non-smokers (P lt
0.001)
26
Hispanic vs. Non-HispanicTobacco Smoke
Extremely Harmful to Children (P lt 0.001)
27
Hispanic vs. Non-HispanicTobacco Smoke
Extremely Harmful to Unborn Child if Mother
Smokes (P lt 0.001)
28
Hispanic vs. Non-HispanicTobacco Use (at least
some days) (P lt 0.001)
29
Hispanic vs. Non-HispanicChanges in Pack/Day
Usage (P lt 0.001)
49
36
4
7
30
Other Evaluation Methods

• Semi-structured interviews with employers
• Survey of those attending cessation class
• Telephone follow-up of cessation class