Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JPN
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • My Cart
  • Log in
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Med Life with Dr. Horton
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • Classified ads
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Activate online account
    • Look up login
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Members Corner
    • Print copies of CMAJ
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
    • Activate subscription
    • Look up login
    • Manage account
    • Manage IPs
    • View Reports
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Analysis

The Smoking Regulatory Index: a new way to measure public health performance

Daniel Rosenfield, Douglas G. Manuel and David A. Alter
CMAJ May 09, 2006 174 (10) 1403-1404; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051304
Daniel Rosenfield
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Douglas G. Manuel
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David A. Alter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Cigarette smoking and environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure are recognized as leading threats to public health. The health effects of ETS have been widely documented, and include an increased risk of lung cancer, respiratory ailments such as asthma and bronchitis, and heart disease. Laws restricting smoking have been shown to be effective public health measures, reducing both cigarette consumption and ETS exposure among smokers and nonsmokers alike.

Previous research suggests that the effectiveness of antismoking laws in reducing ETS depends largely on how comprehensive the law is — in other words, in how many kinds of community spaces and to what degree is smoking prohibited. Partial bans — laws that restrict but do not totally ban smoking — are rarely as effective as comprehensive prohibitions, although they are certainly better than no smoking regulations at all.

A tool that measures the effectiveness of smoke-free regulations rather than simply describing them will demonstrate their potential health benefit. When used at the local level, this tool can benchmark local public health protection, somewhat similar to the way in which wait lists for surgery also examine access to effective health care.

To this end we developed the Smoking Regulatory Index (SRI), a simple measure that can be applied across different jurisdictions (municipal, provincial, federal) and internationally. The SRI produces a score reflecting how well a person is protected from ETS exposure; on a scale of 0 to 100, a score of 50 means that the average potential ETS exposure in public places is reduced by half. The score is derived by estimating the ETS exposure for different types of location (e.g., workplaces, restaurants, bars) and calculating the percent contribution of that location to the overall ETS exposure for a typical person if there were no smoke-free law. The community SRI score, a value between 100 (complete protection against ETS exposure in public places) and zero (no protection), is obtained by summing the percent protection of all locations where laws completely prohibit smoking.

The main challenge in deriving the SRI is estimating the ETS exposure in different locations for a typical person. In prior research, nicotine has been the most commonly used chemical marker of ETS. This is because tobacco smoke is the only source of nicotine, and nicotine is one of the main constituents of cigarette emissions. However, there are few estimates of nicotine exposure in different locations. Furthermore, nicotine concentrations and the average time a person will spend in each location — the 2 components of ETS exposure — will likely range widely.

Despite the potential variation in the measurement of ETS exposure, we expect that SRI scores will be reasonably reliable. Regardless of how ETS exposure is measured, some locations are more important than others for the overall SRI score. For example, workplaces will be important because of the amount of time people spend in them, and licensed establishments will be important because of the concentration of smoking in a confined space. Municipalities must include smoking bans in workplaces and licensed establishments to achieve a high level of protection for ETS exposure — and a high SRI score.

We estimated SRI scores for various Canadian locations using bylaw information,1 likely nicotine concentrations for different areas derived from a synthesis of previous studies,2,3 and data on time spent in workplaces and restaurants4 (Table 1). The results highlight wide disparities in public health protection across Canadian municipalities. In 2001, a municipality such as Abbotsford, BC, would have received an SRI score of 3 because smoking was prohibited only in elevators, places of public assembly, reception areas, retail stores and service counters.1 This compares with a score of 98 in Surrey, BC, where smoking was prohibited in workplaces, restaurants and licensed establishments as well as in municipal facilities, hospitals, places of public assembly, and public transportation (see Appendix 1, available at www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/174/10/1403/DC1). Given the effectiveness of antismoking legislation, the SRI highlights important discrepancies between municipalities and the need for more jurisdictions to enact meaningful legislation.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 1.

The SRI could also be applied to provincial or national levels. Should a province introduce overarching legislation (as Ontario has put forward for the spring of 2006), one could simply apply the SRI to the province as a whole.

Our preliminary SRI estimates can be criticized for incomplete or older municipal data and imprecise ETS exposure measurements. However, this begs the question: why is accurate information lacking for one of the most important public health interventions? ETS interventions, like many other public health interventions, lack regular, comprehensive and public evaluation to gauge their effectiveness, even though performance measures for medical care have expanded comparatively quickly.

To address this, the SRI offers an intuitive and universal system to rank antismoking legislation across Canada and internationally and to monitor progress in curbing the community effects of smoking. It also supports broader efforts to evaluate public health efforts.

Footnotes

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

    Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledge the writing assistance of Amy Zierler throughout the development of this paper. This research was funded in part by the Canadian Population Health Initiative and Canadian Cardiac Outcomes Research Team.

    Douglas G. Manuel is a Career Scientist with the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. David A. Alter is a New Investigator of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

    Competing interests: None declared.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    Grebler L, Morin M, Kaiserman M. Tobacco Control By-laws in Canada 2001. Ottawa: Health Canada: Office of Research, Surveillance and Evaluation, Tobacco Control Programme, Healthy Environments & Consumer Safety Branch. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/tcbc-rmtc/index_e.html (accessed 2006 Mar 6).
  2. 2.↵
    Nebot M. et al. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in public places of European cities. Tob Control 2005;14:60-3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Siegel M, Skeer M. Exposure to secondhand smoke and excess lung cancer mortality risk among workers in the “5 Bs”: bars, bowling alleys, billiard halls, betting establishments, and bingo parlours. Tob Control 2003;12:333-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    General social survey: overview of the time use of Canadians in 1998. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 1999. Cat. no. STC 12F0080XIE.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 174 (10)
CMAJ
Vol. 174, Issue 10
9 May 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Smoking Regulatory Index: a new way to measure public health performance
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
Citation Tools
The Smoking Regulatory Index: a new way to measure public health performance
Daniel Rosenfield, Douglas G. Manuel, David A. Alter
CMAJ May 2006, 174 (10) 1403-1404; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.051304

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
The Smoking Regulatory Index: a new way to measure public health performance
Daniel Rosenfield, Douglas G. Manuel, David A. Alter
CMAJ May 2006, 174 (10) 1403-1404; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.051304
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Dans ce numéro
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Deconstructing the diagnostic reasoning of human versus artificial intelligence
  • Clinical networks: enablers of health system change
  • The “1-year-death number needed to treat” for comparing the impact of distinct interventions on patient outcomes
Show more Analysis

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Tobacco control & smoking

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Alerts
  • RSS

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • CMA Members
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact

Copyright 2019, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire