Before and after study of bar workers' perceptions of the impact of smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p><it>Objectives</it>: To compare support for, and perceptions of, the impacts of smoke-free workplace legislation among bar workers in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) pre- and post-implementation, and to identify predictors of support for the legislation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Setting</it>: Public houses (pubs) in three areas of the ROI.</p> <p><it>Design</it>: Comparisons pre- and post-implementation of smoke-free workplace legislation.</p> <p><it>Participants</it>: From a largely non-random selection, 288 bar workers volunteered for the baseline survey; 220 were followed up one year later (76.4%).</p> <p><it>Outcome measures: </it>Level of support for the legislation, attitude statements concerning potential impacts of the law and modelled predictors of support for the legislation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Pre-implementation 59.5% of participants supported the legislation, increasing to 76.8% post-implementation. Support increased among smokers by 27.3 percentage points from 39.4% to 66.7% (p < 0.001) and among non-smokers by 12.4% percentage points from 68.8% to 81.2% (p = 0.003).</p> <p>Pre-legislation three-quarters of participants agreed that the legislation would make bars more comfortable and was needed to protect workers' health. Post-legislation these proportions increased to over 90% (p < 0.001). However, negative perceptions also increased, particularly for perceptions that the legislation has a negative impact on business (from 50.9% to 62.7%, p = 0.008) and that fewer people would visit pubs (41.8% to 62.7%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for relevant covariates, including responses to the attitude statements, support for the ban increased two to three-fold post-implementation. Regardless of their views on the economic impact, most participants agreed, both pre- and post-implementation, that the legislation was needed to protect bar workers' health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Smoke-free legislation had the support of three-quarters of a large sample of bar workers in the ROI. However, this group holds complex sets of both positive and negative perspectives on the legislation. Of particular importance is that negative economic perceptions did not diminish the widely held perception that the ban is needed to protect workers' health.</p

Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: before and after study

Objectives To compare exposure to secondhand smoke and respiratory health in bar staff in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland before and after the introduction of legislation for smoke-free workplaces in the Republic. Design Comparisons before and after the legislation in intervention and control regions. Setting Public houses in three areas in the Republic (intervention) and one area in Northern Ireland (control). Participants 329 bar staff enrolled in baseline survey; 249 (76%) followed up one year later. Of these, 158 were non-smokers both at baseline and follow-up. Main outcome measures Salivary cotinine concentration, self reported exposure to secondhand smoke, and respiratory and sensory irritation symptoms. Results In bar staff in the Republic who did not themselves smoke, salivary cotinine concentrations dropped by 80% after the smoke-free law (from median 29.0 nmol/l (95% confidence interval 18.2 to 43.2 nmol/l)) to 5.1 nmol/l (2.8 to 13.1 nmol/l) in contrast with a 20% decline in Northern Ireland over the same period (from median 25.3 nmol/l (10.4 to 59.2 nmol/l) to 20.4 nmol/l (13.2 to 33.8 nmol/l)). Changes in self reported exposure to secondhand smoke were consistent with the changes in cotinine concentrations. Reporting any respiratory symptom declined significantly in the Republic (down 16.7%, -26.1% to -7.3%) but not in Northern Ireland (0% difference, -32.7% to 32.7%). After adjustment for confounding, respiratory symptoms declined significantly more in the Republic than in Northern Ireland and the decline in cotinine concentration was twice as great. Conclusion The smoke-free law in the Republic of Ireland protects non-smoking bar workers from exposure to secondhand smoke

Efficacy and safety of maribavir dosed at 100 mg orally twice daily for the prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter controlled trial.

Maribavir is an oral benzimidazole riboside with potent in vitro activity against cytomegalovirus (CMV), including some CMV strains resistant to ganciclovir. In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, the efficacy and safety of prophylactic oral maribavir (100 mg twice daily) for prevention of CMV disease were compared with oral ganciclovir (1000 mg three times daily) in 303 CMV-seronegative liver transplant recipients with CMV-seropositive donors (147 maribavir; 156 ganciclovir). Patients received study drug for up to 14 weeks and were monitored for CMV infection by blood surveillance tests and also for the development of CMV disease. The primary endpoint was Endpoint Committee (EC)-confirmed CMV disease within 6 months of transplantation. In a modified intent-to-treat analysis, the noninferiority of maribavir compared to oral ganciclovir for prevention of CMV disease was not established (12% with maribavir vs. 8% with ganciclovir: event rate difference of 0.041; 95% CI: -0.038, 0.119). Furthermore, significantly fewer ganciclovir patients had EC-confirmed CMV disease or CMV infection by pp65 antigenemia or CMV DNA PCR compared to maribavir patients at both 100 days (20% vs. 60%; p < 0.0001) and at 6 months (53% vs. 72%; p = 0.0053) after transplantation. Graft rejection, patient survival, and non-CMV infections were similar for maribavir and ganciclovir patients. Maribavir was well-tolerated and associated with fewer hematological adverse events than oral ganciclovir. At a dose of 100 mg twice daily, maribavir is safe but not adequate for prevention of CMV disease in liver transplant recipients at high risk for CMV disease