<\/p>\n\n\n
Fern\u00e1ndez E, Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM. <\/p>
Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: a Systematic Review and Observational Study<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Curr Environ Health Rep. <\/span>2015<\/span>;2<\/span>:423\u2013429<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26452675,\r\ntitle = {Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: a Systematic Review and Observational Study},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x},\r\nissn = {2196-5412},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Curr Environ Health Rep},\r\nvolume = {2},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {423--429},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Curr Environ Health Rep. <\/span>2015<\/span>;2<\/span>:423\u2013429<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26452675,\r\ntitle = {Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: a Systematic Review and Observational Study},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x},\r\nissn = {2196-5412},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Curr Environ Health Rep},\r\nvolume = {2},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {423--429},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26452675,\r\ntitle = {Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: a Systematic Review and Observational Study},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x},\r\nissn = {2196-5412},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Curr Environ Health Rep},\r\nvolume = {2},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {423--429},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
@article{pmid26452675,\r\ntitle = {Particulate Matter from Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarettes: a Systematic Review and Observational Study},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x},\r\nissn = {2196-5412},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Curr Environ Health Rep},\r\nvolume = {2},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {423--429},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to review the literature on the composition of aerosols from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) originated by human vaping and to describe the emission of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm in diameter (PM(2.5)) from conventional and e-cigarettes at home in real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Web of Science. We measured PM(2.5) in four different homes: one from a conventional cigarette smoker, one from an e-cigarette user, and two from non-smokers.nnRESULTS: The review identified eight previous investigations on the composition of aerosols from e-cigarettes originated by human vaping and indicated that emissions from e-cigarettes can contain potential toxic compounds such as nicotine, carbonyls, metals, and organic volatile compounds, besides particulate matter. In the observational study, the PM(2.5) median concentration was 9.88 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the e-cigarette user home and 9.53 and 9.36 \u03bcg\/m\u00b3 in the smoke-free homes, with PM(2.5) peaks concurrent with the e-cigarette puffs.nnCONCLUSION: Both the literature review and the observational study indicate that e-cigarettes used under real-conditions emit toxicants, including PM(2.5). Further research is needed to characterize the chemicals emitted by different types of e-cigarettes and to assess secondhand exposure to e-cigarette aerosol using biological markers.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s40572-015-0072-x<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Fern\u00e1ndez E, Lugo A, Clancy L, Matsuo K, La Vecchia C, Gallus S. <\/p>
Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Prev Med. <\/span>2015<\/span>;81<\/span>:314\u2013319<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
@article{pmid26441299,\r\ntitle = {Smoking dependence in 18 European countries: Hard to maintain the hardening hypothesis},\r\nauthor = {Fern\u00e1ndez E and Lugo A and Clancy L and Matsuo K and La Vecchia C and Gallus S},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-12-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {81},\r\npages = {314--319},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: When the prevalence of smoking decreases in a population, there is a hypothesis-the so-called \"hardening hypothesis\"-that the remaining smokers form a subgroup of \"hardcore smokers.\" Our aims were to test the hardening hypothesis and to analyze the determinants of high dependence taking into account both individual and country-level characteristics.nnMETHOD: Within the Pricing Policies and Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project, we conducted a face-to-face survey on smoking between January and July 2010 in 18 European countries, including 2882 male and 2254 female smokers with complete information on smoking dependence. The Heaviness of Smoking Index (HSI) was used as a measure of tobacco dependence. We correlated smoking prevalence and dependence using the country as unit of analysis. Moreover, we fitted multilevel logistic regression models.nnRESULTS: Country-specific prevalence of smoking was positively, although not significantly, correlated with the proportion of highly tobacco-dependent smokers (overall rsp=0.203, p=0.419), both in men (rsp=0.235, p=0.347) and women (rsp=0.455, p=0.058). Using individual-level analysis, high dependence was positively related to age, and, although not significantly, to smoking prevalence, and inversely related to level of education. The lack of a smoking ban at home was positively related to smoking dependence.nnCONCLUSIONS: Using both ecological and individual-level analyses, the relations between smoking prevalence and HSI were not significant, but in the opposite direction as compared to that assumed by the \"hardening hypothesis.\" Therefore, our data provide empirical evidence against this theory, thus supporting the feasibility of an endgame strategy.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2015.09.023<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Ballb\u00e8 M, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
BMJ Open. <\/span>2015<\/span>;5<\/span>:e009218<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
@article{pmid26534735,\r\ntitle = {Perception of electronic cigarettes in the general population: does their usefulness outweigh their risks?},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC and Ballb\u00e8 M and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {5},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {e009218},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the perceptions of the general population about the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) on users and on those passively exposed to e-cigarettes and the perceptions about e-cigarette usefulness for reducing or eliminating tobacco smoking.nnDESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analysed cross-sectional data from a longitudinal study of a representative sample of the general adult (\u226516\u2005years) population of Barcelona, Spain (336 men and 400 women). The fieldwork was conducted between May 2013 and February 2014. We computed the percentages, adjusted OR and their corresponding 95% CI among participants with some awareness of e-cigarettes (79.2% of the sample).nnPRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the perception about harmfulness for e-cigarette users and for passively exposed non-e-cigarette users, as well as the perception of usefulness for smokers of cigarette cessation and reduction.nnRESULTS: In this sample, 40.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on users, and 27.1% thought that e-cigarettes had a harmful effect on passively exposed bystanders (p<0.001). Particularly, more never-smokers perceived that e-cigarettes had harmful effects on passively exposed bystanders than current smokers (34.4% vs 20.6%; OR=1.93, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.63). More people perceived e-cigarettes as being useful for reducing smoking than for quitting (50.6% vs 29.9%, p<0.001), as well as for reducing smoking than as being harmful to users (50.6% vs 40.1%, p=0.044).nnDISCUSSION: The perception that e-cigarettes are useful for reducing tobacco consumption was more prevalent than the perception that e-cigarettes are harmful to users and to those passively exposed to e-cigarettes. Advertisements and messages about the use of e-cigarettes and their harmful effects should be regulated and based on scientific evidence to avoid creating erroneous ideas about their use.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-009218<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Gual A, Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Sureda X, Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A, Gal\u00e1n I, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Addict Behav. <\/span>2015<\/span>;50<\/span>:84\u201388<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
@article{pmid26111658,\r\ntitle = {Association of second-hand smoke exposure at home with psychological distress in the Spanish adult population},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Gual A and Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Sureda X and Padr\u00f3n-Monedero A and Gal\u00e1n I and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020},\r\nissn = {1873-6327},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Addict Behav},\r\nvolume = {50},\r\npages = {84--88},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: Second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure has been associated with increased risks of respiratory and heart diseases. However, little is known about the potential effects of SHS on psychological distress. The aim of this study is to examine the association of SHS exposure at home with psychological distress in Spain.nnMETHODS: A cross-sectional survey about SHS exposure, socio-demographic and health related variables, and psychological distress, measured with the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) with a cut-off score \u2265 3, was conducted from 2011-2012 among a representative sample of the adult population (aged \u2265 15 years) of Spain. From the total sample (n = 21,007), we used the subsample of never-smokers (n = 11,214). We computed the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ by means of unconditional multiple logistic regression models adjusted for sex and age.nnRESULTS: In the subsample, 9.7% (n = 1,090) responded that they were exposed to SHS at home. The prevalence of subjects scoring \u2265 3 on the GHQ was higher for the sample exposed to SHS (22.7%) than for the non-exposed sample (18.9%; OR: 1.39; CI: 1.19-1.62). This association was also present when stratified for sex, age, marital status, socio-economic status, perceived general health, presence of any chronic disease, and alcohol intake.nnCONCLUSIONS: Exposure to SHS at home is associated with psychological distress. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this association is causal. Avoiding SHS exposure at home could have beneficial effects on psychological distress.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.addbeh.2015.06.020<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A, Pinilla J, Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M, Fern\u00e1ndez E, L\u00f3pez MJ. <\/p>
Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Nicotine Tob Res. <\/span>2015<\/span>;17<\/span>:1397\u20131400<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
@article{pmid25586775,\r\ntitle = {Economic Impact of Smoke-Free Legislation: Did the Spanish Tobacco Control Law Affect the Economic Activity of Bars and Restaurants?},\r\nauthor = {Garc\u00eda-Alt\u00e9s A and Pinilla J and Mar\u00ed-Dell'Olmo M and Fern\u00e1ndez E and L\u00f3pez MJ},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346},\r\nissn = {1469-994X},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-11-01},\r\njournal = {Nicotine Tob Res},\r\nvolume = {17},\r\nnumber = {11},\r\npages = {1397--1400},\r\nabstract = {INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>INTRODUCTION: The potential of smoke-free bans to negatively impact the hospitality business has been an argument of the hospitality and tobacco industry against such legislation. A partial smoke-free legislation was introduced in Spain in 2006 allowing smoking in most bars and restaurants due to the pressure of the hospitality sector. However, this partial ban was later amended in 2011 to include all the hospitality premises without exceptions. The stepped Spanish process permits to evaluate whether the entry into force of the smoke-free legislation had any effect on the economic activity of the hospitality sector.nnMETHODS: We employed a pooled time series cross-sectional design, with national data over 6 years (2006-2011). The dependent variable used was the total number of bars and restaurants per 100,000 inhabitants. The explanatory variables used were the average amount of spending per household in bars and restaurants, and the total unemployment rate in Spain by regions.nnRESULTS: For every 1% increase in the unemployment rate there was a 0.05% decrease in the number of bars and restaurants. In 2007, the number of bars and restaurants was significantly reduced by 13.06% (all others factors being held constant), 4.87% in 2008, and 10.42% in 2009. No statistically significant effect of the smoke-free legislation emerged from 2010 (6.76%) to 2011 (7.69%).nnCONCLUSION: The new Spanish smoke-free legislation had no effect on the number of bars and restaurants.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/ntr\/ntu346<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Ballb\u00e8 M, Sureda X, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Fu M, Salt\u00f3 E, Gual A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Tob Control. <\/span>2015<\/span>;24<\/span>:e212\u2013e220<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
@article{pmid25239470,\r\ntitle = {Secondhand smoke in psychiatric units: patient and staff misperceptions},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Sureda X and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Fu M and Salt\u00f3 E and Gual A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-10-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {24},\r\nnumber = {e3},\r\npages = {e212--e220},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Mental health units have usually been exempted from complete smoke-free policies. The aim of this study was to compare the self-reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) of patients and staff in psychiatric units to objective measures, and examine preference for different types of smoking bans.nnMETHODS: Cross-sectional survey about ban preferences and self-reported exposure to SHS by means of a self-administered questionnaire administered to patients and staff from 65 inpatient psychiatric units in Catalonia (95.5% of all units). We measured air concentrations of particulate matter \u2264 2.5 \u03bcm (PM2.5 in \u00b5g\/m(3)) as a marker of SHS in these units.nnRESULTS: 600 patients and 575 professionals completed the questionnaire. 78.7% of them were objectively exposed to SHS (PM2.5>10 \u03bcm\/m(3)) but 56.9% of patients and 33.6% of staff believed they were not exposed at all and 41.6% of patients and 28.4% of staff believed the environment was not at all unhealthy. Nurses had a higher smoking prevalence than psychiatrists (35.8% vs 17.2%; p<0.001), and nurses had a higher perception of being moderately highly exposed to SHS (40.3% vs 26.2%; p<0.001). PM2.5 levels were significantly different depending on the type of smoking ban implemented but unrelated to the perception of SHS levels by both patients and staff. Only 29.3% of staff and 14.1% of patients strongly supported total smoking bans.nnCONCLUSIONS: Patients and staff have substantial misperceptions about the extent of their exposure to SHS and low awareness about the harmful environment in which they stay\/work. This might have an influence on the preference for less restrictive smoke-free bans. It is particularly noteworthy that less that one-third of mental health staff supported smoke-free units, suggesting an urgent need for further education about the harmful health effects of SHS.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2014-051585<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Hollmann M, Borrell C, Garin O, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Alonso J. <\/p>
Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health<\/a>. Journal Article<\/span> <\/p>Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Int J Public Health. <\/span>2015<\/span>;60<\/span>:495\u2013504<\/span>.<\/p>Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Abstract<\/a><\/span> | Links<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Tags: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
@article{pmid25740659,\r\ntitle = {Factors influencing publication of scientific articles derived from masters theses in public health},\r\nauthor = {Hollmann M and Borrell C and Garin O and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Alonso J},\r\ndoi = {10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0},\r\nissn = {1661-8564},\r\nyear = {2015},\r\ndate = {2015-05-01},\r\njournal = {Int J Public Health},\r\nvolume = {60},\r\nnumber = {4},\r\npages = {495--504},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: To evaluate theses of a Masters program in Public Health (MPH), in terms of the students' and theses' characteristics that influence publication of the thesis as a scientific article.nnMETHODS: Longitudinal study of students who successfully completed the MPH at Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Universitat Aut\u00f2noma de Barcelona (Spain) from 2006 to 2010. Participants completed an electronic survey and additional data were gathered from university files.nnRESULTS: 162 students participated in the study (83\u00a0% response rate). 60.5\u00a0% had already published an article derived from their thesis at the time of the study or were in process of publishing it. The likelihood of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal was greater among women (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.41), among those who had a bachelor's degree in sciences other than health (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.40), had completed the MPH on time (aRR\u00a0=\u00a02.10), had enrolled in a doctoral program after the MPH (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.44) or had a masters thesis score of \u22657 (aRR\u00a0=\u00a01.61).nnCONCLUSIONS: The majority of MPH students published their thesis in a peer-reviewed journal. The strongest predictors of successful publication were related to academic performance.<\/div>Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>
Close<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1007\/s00038-015-0664-0<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>