Introduction Smoke-free legislation has been instrumental in reducing secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure in public places. However, the evidence of the impact of institutional smoke-free policies in settings such as healthcare and defence is weaker. Specifically, the literature on the effect of smoke-free policies in military settings has not yet been synthesised.
Methods This review aimed to identify, critically appraise and synthesise the available evidence to evaluate the effect of defence smoke-free policies on SHS exposure. Eight electronic databases (eg, EMBASE, MEDLINE) were searched from inception to June 2020. We included English-language studies on smoke-free policies introduced in a defence setting, assessing their impact on SHS exposure (primary outcome) and healthcare utilisation, smoking behaviours and defence efficiency (secondary outcomes). Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I. Synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted using vote counting of direction of effect.
Results The search retrieved 4503 citations of which eight met inclusion criteria; two controlled and six uncontrolled before-and-after studies. The evidence, although low-quality, from one study indicated reduced SHS exposure following the introduction of a defence smoke-free policy. For secondary outcomes the review found mixed results, with the quit rate being the one outcome favouring smoke-free policies. The cumulative confidence of evidence is uncertain and therefore reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from these studies.
Conclusions A research gap exists for high-quality studies on the impact of defence smoke-free policies which should use comparators and, if possible, randomisation. Policy-makers should introduce institutional smoke-free policies in defence settings within an evaluative framework to generate such evidence.
- public health
- preventive medicine
- occupational & industrial medicine
- health policy
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Collaborators Alexandra Macnamara.
Contributors TFH conducted the systematic review for his masters dissertation under the supervision of KS. TFH wrote the initial draft of this paper with revisions and additions made by KS. AM assisted with study selection, data collection and risk of bias assessment.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.