<\/p>\n\n\n
Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Cl\u00e8ries R, Villalb\u00ed JR, Daynard RA, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Opposite trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes in Spain (1991-2020)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e006552<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25500162,\r\ntitle = {Opposite trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes in Spain (1991-2020)},\r\nauthor = {Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Cl\u00e8ries R and Villalb\u00ed JR and Daynard RA and Connolly GN and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-12-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {4},\r\nnumber = {12},\r\npages = {e006552},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e006552<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25500162,\r\ntitle = {Opposite trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes in Spain (1991-2020)},\r\nauthor = {Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Cl\u00e8ries R and Villalb\u00ed JR and Daynard RA and Connolly GN and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-12-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {4},\r\nnumber = {12},\r\npages = {e006552},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25500162,\r\ntitle = {Opposite trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes in Spain (1991-2020)},\r\nauthor = {Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Cl\u00e8ries R and Villalb\u00ed JR and Daynard RA and Connolly GN and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-12-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {4},\r\nnumber = {12},\r\npages = {e006552},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
@article{pmid25500162,\r\ntitle = {Opposite trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes in Spain (1991-2020)},\r\nauthor = {Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Cl\u00e8ries R and Villalb\u00ed JR and Daynard RA and Connolly GN and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552},\r\nissn = {2044-6055},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-12-01},\r\njournal = {BMJ Open},\r\nvolume = {4},\r\nnumber = {12},\r\npages = {e006552},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe trends in the consumption of manufactured and roll-your-own cigarettes between 1991 and 2012 in Spain, and to project these trends up to 2020.nnMETHODS: We estimated daily consumption per capita during 1991-2012 using data on sales of manufactured cigarettes (20-packs) and rolling tobacco (kg) from the Tobacco Market Commission, and using data of the Spanish adult population from the National Statistics Institute. We considered different weights (0.5, 0.8 and 1\u2005g) to compute the number of rolled cigarettes per capita. We computed the annual per cent of change and assessed possible changes in trends using joinpoint regression, and projected the consumption up to 2020 using Bayesian methods.nnRESULTS: Daily consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes decreased on average by 3.0% per year in 1991-2012, from 7.6 to 3.8 units, with three trend changes. However, daily consumption per capita of roll-your-own cigarettes increased on average by 14.1% per year, from 0.07 to 0.92 units of 0.5\u2005g, with unchanged trends. Together, daily consumption per capita decreased between 2.9% and 2.5%, depending on the weight of the roll-your-own cigarettes. Projections up to 2020 indicate a decrease of manufactured cigarettes (1.75 units per capita) but an increase of roll-your-own cigarettes (1.25 units per capita).nnCONCLUSIONS: While the consumption per capita of manufactured cigarettes has decreased in the past years in Spain, the consumption of roll-your-own cigarettes has increased at an annual rate around 14% over the past years. Whereas a net decrease in cigarette consumption is expected in the future, use of roll-your-own cigarettes will continue to increase.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/bmjopen-2014-006552<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Mart\u00ednez C, Fu M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ant\u00f3n L, Fern\u00e1ndez P, Ballb\u00e8 M, Andr\u00e9s A, Riccobene A, Sureda X, Gallart A, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
BMC Public Health. <\/span>2014<\/span>;14<\/span>:1228<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
@article{pmid25427959,\r\ntitle = {Impact of a long-term tobacco-free policy at a comprehensive cancer center: a series of cross-sectional surveys},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Fu M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Ant\u00f3n L and Fern\u00e1ndez P and Ballb\u00e8 M and Andr\u00e9s A and Riccobene A and Sureda X and Gallart A and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228},\r\nissn = {1471-2458},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {BMC Public Health},\r\nvolume = {14},\r\npages = {1228},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: Spain has passed two smoke-free laws in the last years. In 2005, the law banned smoking in indoor places, and in 2010 the ban was extended to outdoor areas of certain premises such as hospitals. This study assesses the impact of smoking consumption among hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center after the passage of two national smoke-free laws.nnMETHODS: Six cross-sectional surveys were conducted among a representative sample of hospital workers at a comprehensive cancer center in Barcelona (2001-2012) using a standardized questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to compare differences in the odds of smoking after the laws took effect (baseline vs. 1st law; 2nd law vs. 1st law).nnRESULTS: Baseline smoking prevalence was 33.1%. After passage of the 1st and 2nd laws, prevalence decreased, respectively, to 30.5% and 22.2% (p for trend =0.005). Prevalence ratios (PR) indicated a significant decrease in overall smoking after the 2nd law (PR\u2009=\u20090.65, 95% CI\u2009=\u20090.47-0-89). Smoking dropped in all professional groups, more prominently among those \u226535\u00a0years old, doctors, and women. Observed trends over the time included an increase in occasional smokers, a rise in abstinence during working hours but an increase in smoking dependence, and an increase in the employees' overall support for the smoke-free hospital project.nnCONCLUSIONS: A long-term tobacco control project combined with two smoke-free national laws reduced smoking rates among health workers and increased their support for tobacco control policies. The decrease was more significant after the passage of the outdoor smoke-free ban.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1186\/1471-2458-14-1228<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Ballb\u00e8 M, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Sureda X, Fu M, P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R, Pascual JA, Salt\u00f3 E, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Environ Res. <\/span>2014<\/span>;135<\/span>:76\u201380<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
@article{pmid25262078,\r\ntitle = {Cigarettes vs. e-cigarettes: Passive exposure at home measured by means of airborne marker and biomarkers},\r\nauthor = {Ballb\u00e8 M and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Sureda X and Fu M and P\u00e9rez-Ortu\u00f1o R and Pascual JA and Salt\u00f3 E and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005},\r\nissn = {1096-0953},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-11-01},\r\njournal = {Environ Res},\r\nvolume = {135},\r\npages = {76--80},\r\nabstract = {BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>BACKGROUND: There is scarce evidence about passive exposure to the vapour released or exhaled from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) under real conditions. The aim of this study is to characterise passive exposure to nicotine from e-cigarettes' vapour and conventional cigarettes' smoke at home among non-smokers under real-use conditions.nnMETHODS: We conducted an observational study with 54 non-smoker volunteers from different homes: 25 living at home with conventional smokers, 5 living with nicotine e-cigarette users, and 24 from control homes (not using conventional cigarettes neither e-cigarettes). We measured airborne nicotine at home and biomarkers (cotinine in saliva and urine). We calculated geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviations (GSD). We also performed ANOVA and Student's t tests for the log-transformed data. We used Bonferroni-corrected t-tests to control the family error rate for multiple comparisons at 5%.nnRESULTS: The GMs of airborne nicotine were 0.74 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=4.05) in the smokers' homes, 0.13 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=2.4) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.02 \u03bcg\/m(3) (GSD=3.51) in the control homes. The GMs of salivary cotinine were 0.38 ng\/ml (GSD=2.34) in the smokers' homes, 0.19 ng\/ml (GSD=2.17) in the e-cigarettes users' homes, and 0.07 ng\/ml (GSD=1.79) in the control homes. Salivary cotinine concentrations of the non-smokers exposed to e-cigarette's vapour at home (all exposed \u2265 2 h\/day) were statistically significant different that those found in non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke \u2265 2 h\/day and in non-smokers from control homes.nnCONCLUSIONS: The airborne markers were statistically higher in conventional cigarette homes than in e-cigarettes homes (5.7 times higher). However, concentrations of both biomarkers among non-smokers exposed to conventional cigarettes and e-cigarettes' vapour were statistically similar (only 2 and 1.4 times higher, respectively). The levels of airborne nicotine and cotinine concentrations in the homes with e-cigarette users were higher than control homes (differences statistically significant). Our results show that non-smokers passively exposed to e-cigarettes absorb nicotine.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.envres.2014.09.005<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Martin-Moreno JM, Ricciardi W, Bjegovic-Mikanovic V, Maguire P, McKee M. <\/p>
Ebola: an open letter to European governments<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1474-547X<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
@misc{pmid25263575,\r\ntitle = {Ebola: an open letter to European governments},\r\nauthor = {Martin-Moreno JM and Ricciardi W and Bjegovic-Mikanovic V and Maguire P and McKee M},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1},\r\nissn = {1474-547X},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Lancet},\r\nvolume = {384},\r\nnumber = {9950},\r\npages = {1259},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61611-1<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Gallus S, Lugo A, Fernandez E, Gilmore AB, Leon ME, Clancy L, La Vecchia C. <\/p>
Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Prev Med. <\/span>2014<\/span>;67<\/span>:255\u2013258<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
@article{pmid25117519,\r\ntitle = {Support for a tobacco endgame strategy in 18 European countries},\r\nauthor = {Gallus S and Lugo A and Fernandez E and Gilmore AB and Leon ME and Clancy L and La Vecchia C},\r\ndoi = {10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001},\r\nissn = {1096-0260},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-10-01},\r\njournal = {Prev Med},\r\nvolume = {67},\r\npages = {255--258},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVE: The feasibility of a tobacco endgame strategy, aiming to bring smoking prevalence to near-zero levels, is currently under debate. We provide information on public support for such a strategy in Europe.nnMETHODS: In 2010 we conducted a face-to-face representative survey in 18 European countries (Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Croatia, England, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Sweden). The present analysis is based on 16,947 individuals aged \u2265 15 years providing information on their attitudes towards a complete ban on the use or sale of tobacco.nnRESULTS: Overall, 34.9% of adults (32.8% in men and 37.0% in women; p<0.001) supported a complete ban strategy on use or sale of tobacco, 41.2% of never, 29.4% of ex- and 25.6% of current smokers. The highest support was observed in southern Europe (42.5%), followed by eastern (39.1%), northern (27.5%) and western Europe (23.0%; p<0.001). A significant inverse trend was observed with both age and education.nnCONCLUSION: Approximately one in three adults (and one in four smokers) supports a comprehensive tobacco endgame intervention. This first study in Europe provides a baseline for evaluating future trends in public support for extreme propositions to end or drastically cut smoking.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1016\/j.ypmed.2014.08.001<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Bilal U, Fern\u00e1ndez E, Navas-Acien A, Bolumar F, Franco M. <\/p>
Five authors reply<\/a>. Miscel\u00e1nea<\/span> <\/p>2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
2014<\/span>, ISSN: 1476-6256<\/span>.<\/p>Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
@misc{pmid25063815,\r\ntitle = {Five authors reply},\r\nauthor = {Bilal U and Fern\u00e1ndez E and Navas-Acien A and Bolumar F and Franco M},\r\ndoi = {10.1093\/aje\/kwu185},\r\nissn = {1476-6256},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Am J Epidemiol},\r\nvolume = {180},\r\nnumber = {6},\r\npages = {659},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {misc}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1093\/aje\/kwu185<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Mart\u00ednez C, Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Robinson G, Bethke C, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Tob Control. <\/span>2014<\/span>;23<\/span>:403\u2013411<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> | BibTeX<\/a><\/span> | Etiquetas: <\/span><\/p>@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
@article{pmid23596198,\r\ntitle = {Protection from secondhand smoke in countries belonging to the WHO European Region: an assessment of legislation},\r\nauthor = {Mart\u00ednez C and Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM and Robinson G and Bethke C and Fern\u00e1ndez E},\r\ndoi = {10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715},\r\nissn = {1468-3318},\r\nyear = {2014},\r\ndate = {2014-09-01},\r\njournal = {Tob Control},\r\nvolume = {23},\r\nnumber = {5},\r\npages = {403--411},\r\nabstract = {OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.},\r\nkeywords = {},\r\npubstate = {published},\r\ntppubtype = {article}\r\n}\r\n<\/pre><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div>OBJECTIVES: Comprehensive smokefree laws, as recommended by the WHO Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), are the most effective tool to protect the population from secondhand smoke (SHS) and to ensure healthy environments. Studies evaluating how laws govern SHS protection are scarce. This study assessed the level of protection from SHS of laws from countries belonging to the WHO European Region.nnMETHODS: A new methodology system was developed to evaluate the smokefree legislation according to the principles provided by the WHO guidelines for the correct implementation of Article 8 of the FCTC. For each law, six main sectors and 28 facilities were evaluated.nnRESULTS: Overall 68 laws from 48 countries from the WHO European Region were reviewed. 'Education' and 'Public transport' were the most protected sectors from SHS. Many WHO European laws do not provide protection from SHS across all public sectors. For example, 48.5% of general health facilities and 71.2% of restaurants are unprotected from SHS. The level of protection provided in the 28 facilities studied was low; many WHO European laws still allow smoking under certain conditions, permitting smoking in designated and\/or ventilated areas.nnCONCLUSIONS: Nine years after the adoption of the WHO FCTC there are still legal formulas in which smoking is allowed in several facilities, through the inclusion of separated areas, ventilated areas and other conditions. Tobacco control efforts still face the challenge of eradicating the legal clauses that prevent 100% smokefree environments.<\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/i>doi:10.1136\/tobaccocontrol-2012-050715<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/div>Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Cerrar<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div> Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Mart\u00ednez-S\u00e1nchez JM, Ballb\u00e8 M, Fu M, Mart\u00edn-S\u00e1nchez JC, Salt\u00f3 E, Gottlieb M, Daynard R, Connolly GN, Fern\u00e1ndez E. <\/p>
Electronic cigarette use among adult population: a cross-sectional study in Barcelona, Spain (2013-2014)<\/a>. Art\u00edculo<\/span> <\/p>BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
BMJ Open. <\/span>2014<\/span>;4<\/span>:e005894<\/span>.<\/p>Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |
Resumen<\/a><\/span> | Enlaces<\/a><\/span> |