EDITORIAL
Best practices for secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol protection and evidence supporting the expansion of smoke and aerosol-free environments: Recommendations from the 2nd Joint Action on Tobacco Control
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Medical
Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche
Farmacologiche Mario Negri,
Milan, Italy
2
Tobacco Control Unit, WHO
Collaborating Centre for Tobacco
Control, Catalan Institute of
Oncology (ICO), L'Hospitalet de
Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
3
Tobacco Control Research
Group, Institut d’Investigació
Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL),
l’Hospitalet de Llobregat,
Barcelona, Spain
4
Centre for Biomedical Research
in Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES),
Institute of Health Carlos III,
Madrid, Spain
5
Oncologic Network, Prevention
and Research Institute (ISPRO),
Florence, Italy
6
Association NoFumadores.org,
Madrid, Spain
7
Group of Evaluation of Health
Determinants and Health Policies,
Faculty of Medicine and Health
Science, International University
of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain
8
National Institute of Public
Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia
9
Directorate of Epidemiology and
Prevention of Non- Communicable
Diseases and Injuries, National
Public Health Organization
(NPHO), Athens, Greece
10
Health Services Management
Training Centre, Semmelweis
University, Budapest, Hungary
11
Department of Clinical
Sciences, School of Medicine and
Health Sciences, University of
Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Submission date: 2024-03-20
Acceptance date: 2024-09-10
Publication date: 2024-10-21
Corresponding author
Silvano Gallus
Department of Medical Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2024;10(October):45
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) is a global health threat that
causes diseases and kills more than 1.2 million people each year, including 65000
children1-4. The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on
Tobacco Control (FCTC) urges countries to establish comprehensive smoke-free
environments5. Although European Union (EU) member states have implemented
smoke-free laws, challenges persist with designated smoking rooms (e.g. in hospital
venues and in airports) and neglect of emerging products, such as electronic
cigarettes (e-cigarette) and heated tobacco products (HTP)6,7. This editorial
provides concise recommendations on smoke- and aerosol-free environments
(SAFE) in the EU, focusing on evidence-based strategies for SAFE. Promoting the
expansion of SAFE throughout EU countries was a key objective of the JATC-2, a
project co-funded by the European Commission. To address this objective, WP8
focused on the current framework and potential expansion of SAFE in Europe.
As part of this effort, a consultation was conducted in 2022, engaging 110 experts
from 27 EU member states, along with Norway, Serbia, and the United Kingdom.
The sources to identify experts were the JATC-2 contact list of all authorities
and stakeholders working with tobacco regulation (policymakers and regulators,
researchers and tobacco inspectors) for countries of the EU; the Catalan Institute of
Oncology/WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control list of contacts, including
speakers and attendees to five editions of ICO-WHO Symposia on tobacco control;
and lists of contacts from Smoke-Free Partnership and the European Network for
Smoking and Tobacco Prevention. The responses from these experts provided
valuable information on the barriers, opportunities, and best practices associated
with SAFE policies across different countries. This collective knowledge, combined
with findings from a systematic literature review (covering articles published
between January 2010 and August 2022) and dedicated discussions (including
a symposium satellite of the 9th European Conference on Tobacco or Health),
forms the basis for recommendations on effective strategies and interventions
to safeguard individuals from SHS and secondhand aerosol (SHA). The expert
consultations are summarized in the following recommendations.
Exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke (SHS) is a global health threat that causes diseases and kills more than 1.2 million people each year, including 65000 children1-4. The World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) urges countries to establish comprehensive smoke-free environments5. Although European Union (EU) member states have implemented smoke-free laws, challenges persist with designated smoking rooms (e.g. in hospital venues and in airports) and neglect of emerging products, such as electronic cigarettes (e-cigarette) and heated tobacco products (HTP)6,7. This editorial provides concise recommendations on smoke- and aerosol-free environments (SAFE) in the EU, focusing on evidence-based strategies for SAFE. Promoting the expansion of SAFE throughout EU countries was a key objective of the JATC-2, a project co-funded by the European Commission. To address this objective, WP8 focused on the current framework and potential expansion of SAFE in Europe. As part of this effort, a consultation was conducted in 2022, engaging 110 experts from 27 EU member states, along with Norway, Serbia, and the United Kingdom. The sources to identify experts were the JATC-2 contact list of all authorities and stakeholders working with tobacco regulation (policymakers and regulators, researchers and tobacco inspectors) for countries of the EU; the Catalan Institute of Oncology/WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control list of contacts, including speakers and attendees to five editions of ICO-WHO Symposia on tobacco control; and lists of contacts from Smoke-Free Partnership and the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention. The responses from these experts provided valuable information on the barriers, opportunities, and best practices associated with SAFE policies across different countries. This collective knowledge, combined with findings from a systematic literature review (covering articles published between January 2010 and August 2022) and dedicated discussions (including a symposium satellite of the 9th European Conference on Tobacco or Health), forms the basis for recommendations on effective strategies and interventions to safeguard individuals from SHS and secondhand aerosol (SHA). The expert consultations are summarized in the following recommendations.
Complete ban – without exemptions – and enforcement for indoor and outdoor environments
Indoor and outdoor workplaces (public and private)
Enforcing strong tobacco and nicotine use bans (hereafter referred to as smoking bans) in public and private workplaces, both indoors and outdoors, is essential to ensure the health and well-being of workers. Despite widespread support, compliance remains a challenge, particularly outdoors, and enforcement varies across EU countries8-10.
The impact of smoking on lost productivity, increased sick days and reduced concentration11,12 underscores the need for a smoke-free environment that benefits both employees and customers, smokers and non-smokers. Additionally, fire hazards posed by smoking materials and improperly discarded cigarette butts should also be considered. Best practices from Denmark, such as the ‘Smoke-free work hours’ policy, demonstrate effectiveness, emphasizing the need for consistent and stringent enforcement in most EU countries13. Complete smoking bans not only protect employees from SHS and SHA, but also promote a healthier work environment, encouraging smokers to quit or reduce their cigarette consumption6,14.
Indoor and outdoor hospitality venues (public and private)
In the EU, indoor smoking bans in hospitality venues show good compliance, but challenges persist outdoors, where many countries have partial or no legislation15. Exclusive indoor bans lead smokers outdoors, increasing nicotine exposure in bar and restaurant terraces16,17.
Bans in public places provide positive role models, particularly for young people, sending a clear message against the social acceptability of tobacco and nicotine use. This may discourage smoking initiation and supports cessation efforts18-20. Complete bans are essential, acknowledging no safe exposure level to SHS/SHA7,21.
Indoor and outdoor public transport
Implementing smoking bans in public transport (train, bus, airports), including outdoor areas, improves safety and accessibility for passengers. Notable examples from Hungary, the Netherlands, and Estonia demonstrate success, with numerous train stations and various modes of transport becoming smoke-free22. Outdoor smoke-free policies not only contribute to passenger well-being but also help to reduce PM2.5 levels and litter caused by discarded cigarette butts, which is a major global concern23,24. Governments and communities should recognize these benefits, emphasizing the need for complete smoking bans in outdoor places related to public transport and reinforcing indoor bans.
Indoor and outdoor settings frequented by minors, swimming pools, and sport settings
EU countries have implemented smoking bans in public spaces frequented by children, but legislation remains partial or absent in about half of the EU countries15. Recent studies show concerning findings, including the presence of airborne nicotine and cigarette butts in EU playgrounds25,26. Despite challenges, there is strong support for implementing smoke-free policies in outdoor settings for children27. The primary motivation is to protect children from the harmful effects of SHS/SHA, as they are more susceptible to respiratory issues and other health problems3. In addition, enforcing smoking bans in these areas significantly deters youth from starting smoking7,18. The Luxembourg model, featuring smoke-free children’s playgrounds, is a notable best practice identified in the consultation within WP828. Numerous outdoor sport clubs in the Netherlands, Spain, and other European countries that have voluntarily adopted smoke-free policies are positive examples of creating healthier environments29. Similarly, introducing and enforcing smoke-free policies in swimming pools across Europe would further contribute to protect the health and well-being of minors and adults in recreational and sport settings.
Indoor and outdoor healthcare facilities
While most EU countries have implemented complete indoor smoking bans in healthcare facilities, the scenario differs outdoors, with generally partial or no bans across almost all EU member states15. Enforcing smoking bans in healthcare facilities (indoor and outdoor) is crucial for maintaining clean and healthy environments, particularly for vulnerable individuals23. Healthcare professionals, as role models, have an important influence on the promotion of healthy habits. The Ireland strict ban on smoking in ‘The Health Service Executive facilities’ sets a notable example identified by WP8, serving as a model for future developments and emphasizing strong support for smoking bans in healthcare facilities30.
Private vehicles
Smoking in cars or driving motorcycles poses a distraction for drivers, compromising road safety31,32. Legislation for smoke-free private cars aims at reducing the risk and ensures the well-being and safety of both smokers and passengers. There is strong support for smoke-free policies in cars, especially in the presence of minors, given the well-recognized danger of SHS/SHA to children’s health27. Several EU countries have enacted laws prohibiting smoking in cars with minors33-37. Smoke can reach high levels even with the windows open, posing important health risks38. Moreover, the environmental threat of fires is increased as smoking drivers may discard cigarette butts along the route39.
Selected outdoor settings, including parks, forests, and beaches
Despite the potentially high levels of SHS/SHA exposure in these frequented outdoor spaces, only a few EU countries have comprehensive bans in these areas. Successful bans in beaches such as Bibione (Italy)26,40, and Barcelona, Catalonia (Spain)41, demonstrate their positive impact. These bans encourage healthier behaviors and preserve natural spaces from discarded cigarette butts, which pose toxic risks to soil and water. In addition, they reduce the likelihood of accidental fires21,42. Effective implementation requires raising awareness through targeted campaigns and communication strategies, as well as collaboration among local authorities, community organizations, stakeholders, and environmental groups. Implementing smoking bans in selected outdoor areas, such as parks, forests, and beaches is crucial for creating healthier environments and safeguarding public health.
Public housing and multi-unit dwellings
Public housing and multi-unit dwellings are prime candidates for implementing smoking bans due to the ease with which SHS can spread between apartments, corridors, and community rooms. A study in Denmark revealed that 22% of people living in multi-unit dwellings were exposed to neighbors’ smoke, with 58% of exposed people in favor of smoke-free multi-unit dwellings43. A systematic review of 35 studies in the USA suggests strong support for smoke-free multi-unit dwelling policies among most residents44.
Voluntary smoking ban for homes: Avoid exposure to vulnerable populations, including minors
Promoting voluntary smoke-free homes through information campaigns protects vulnerable populations, especially minors, from SHS. Government smoke-free campaigns have significantly increased smoke-free homes, reducing SHS exposure and diminishing the social acceptability of smoking24,45,46. The implementation of indoor smoking bans improves air quality, reducing PM10 and PM2.5 levels47,48. In addition to the health benefits, avoiding smoking in the home minimizes fire hazards and creates a safer environment. A voluntary smoking ban at home sets a positive example for children, fostering healthy behaviors and a smoke-free lifestyle49. The successful ‘Smoke-free Homes – Take 7 steps out’ campaign in the United Kingdom serves as inspiration50, emphasizing the importance of motivating individuals and families to actively choose smoke-free private spaces for a healthier future.
Equalizing legislation for electronic cigarettes and heated tobacco products to that of conventional tobacco products
E-cigarettes and HTPs have grown in popularity51,52. However, the scientific community, including the WHO, poses health concerns regarding these products, given the development of respiratory disorders associated with e-cigarette use and potential toxic emissions from HTPs. Current evidence does not support reduced health risks from HTPs compared with conventional cigarettes53. Although a Cochrane review suggests that e-cigarettes gave higher quit rates than nicotine replacement therapy, success remains low, with over 80% of users continuing to use e-cigarettes after quitting smoking54. Moreover, a recent Italian cohort study confirmed that the use of e-cigarettes and HTPs may be associated with smoking initiation among never smokers, especially young people, and relapse among former smokers55, in addition to accumulated evidence in the last decade56-58.
The dynamic nature of these products challenges regulation, allowing rapid market expansion with unknown long-term effects. This raises concerns for public health and consumer protection, undermining efforts to de-normalize smoking.
European regulation is inconsistent, with only a few countries that have equalized smoking legislation for e-cigarettes and HTPs. This has led smokers to use e-cigarettes or HTPs indoors, resulting in a majority of dual users and exposing a substantial portion of the population to SHA, exceeding the levels found for SHS.
Barriers and opportunities for the expansion of SAFE
The barriers to the expansion of SAFE that were identified included: the pervasive influence of the tobacco industry, driven by lobbying and funding activities; government reluctance, in the form of inadequate outdoor legislation, lax vending regulations, and a false sense that problems related to smoking and tobacco control have been solved; resistance to SAFE policies of specific settings, including hospitality, tourism, small businesses, and private homes; misinformation, resulting from a lack of accurate data on tobacco nicotine-containing products and concerns over insufficient evidence of harm and about stigmatizing smokers.
However, numerous opportunities for the expansion of SAFE also arise such as: extending SAFE policies to specific outdoor venues; enhancing awareness; supporting educational initiatives; promoting transparency; imposing significant fines; and focusing on clear strategies that can effectively advance SAFE policies. Barriers and opportunities for the expansion of SAFE policies are presented in one of the research articles in this special issue.
Conclusion
Promoting SAFE in the EU is vital for protecting public health and reducing the harm caused by tobacco and nicotine products. Comprehensive smoke-free regulations covering indoor and outdoor settings, including private vehicles along with advocating for voluntary smoke-free homes, are essential steps. Equalizing legislation for emerging tobacco products (HTPs and all e-cigarettes, including non-nicotine variants) with conventional cigarettes is crucial for public health protection. Finally, enforcement of smoke-free laws, civil society engagement, and robust monitoring promise to increase the impact of SAFE legislation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of the following
experts that participated in the consultation on Smoke- and Aerosol-
Free Environments in the EU: Aive Telling, Alexandra Pankova, Andreas
Weinseiss, Astrid Knudsen, Barbara Kocjan Slapar, Biljana Kilibarda,
Catherine Charpentier, Christa Rustler, Christine Baluci, Constantine
Vardavas, Daniëlle Arnold, Dražen Pavasović, Emmanuelle Beguinot, Esther
Croes, Eva Kralikova, Helena Koprivnikar, Helena Wilson, Herodotos
Herodotou, Ioanna Parara, Iveta Pudule, Judit Kiss, Kamran Siddiqi,
Katalin Bitó, Katrin Schaller, Kristin Byrkje, Kristina Aidla, Linda Karlsson,
Lisbeth Holm Olesen, Lorenzo Spizzichino, Lucienne Thommes, Magdalena
Ciobanu, Manfred Neuberger, Mara van Dooremal, Maria Karekla, Maria
Alejandra Cardenas, Maria Sofia Cattaruzza, Marie Nejedla, Martina Blake,
Mateusz Jankowski, Mathieu Capouet, Maurice Mulcahy, Meri Paavola,
Mirjana Kujundžić Tiljak, Nataša Blažko, Neža Polh, Nicole Schager, Nijole
Gostautaite Midttun, Patrick Goodman, Pedro Marques, Pieter Rijswijk,
Raquel Fernández-Megina, Reet Pruul, Reina de Kinder, Sanita Lazdina,
Sean Sempre, Sebastiaan de Groot, Sofia Ravara, Soula Ioannou, Suzanne
Gabriels, Suzanne Dowd, Sylvia Sklárová, Tibor Demjén, Timea Záluszká, Ulf
Bergsten, Una Martinsone, Veerle Maes, Viktor Mravcik, Waltraud Posch.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure
of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none was reported.
FUNDING
This study was co-funded by the European Union’s Health Programme
under Grant Agreement No. 101035968/ JA-01-2020 (HaDEA). DCP, AML
and EF are partially supported by the Department of Universities and
Research, Government of Catalonia (2021 SGR 00906), and acknowledge
CERCA institutional support to IDIBELL.
ETHICAL APPROVAL AND INFORMED CONSENT
Ethical approval and informed consent were not required for this study.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The data supporting this research is available from the authors on reasonable request.
PROVENANCE AND PEER REVIEW
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors.
REFERENCES (58)
1.
Carreras G, Lugo A, Gallus S, et al. Burden of disease attributable to second-hand smoke exposure: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2019;129:105833. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105833
2.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Personal Habits and Indoor Combustions: IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Volume 100E. IARC; 2012.
3.
World Health Organization. Tobacco control to improve child health and development: thematic brief. WHO; 2021. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.who.int/publicatio...
4.
Zhai C, Hu D, Yu G, et al. Global, regional, and national deaths, disability-adjusted life years, years lived with disability, and years of life lost for the global disease burden attributable to second-hand smoke, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Sci Total Environ. 2023;862:160677. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160677
5.
World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2021: addressing new and emerging products. WHO; 2021. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.who.int/publicatio...
6.
Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ. 2002;325(7357):188. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7357.188
7.
Smoke Free Partnership. Smoke Free Partnership Response to the European Commission’s call for evidence on the smoke-free environments. 2022. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.smokefreepartnersh...
8.
European Commission. Study on smoke-free environments and advertising of tobacco and related products – Executive summary. Publications Office; 2021. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10....
10.
Nogueira SO, Fu M, Lugo A, et al. Non-smokers' and smokers' support for smoke-free legislation in 14 indoor and outdoor settings across 12 European countries. Environ Res. 2022;204(Pt C):112224. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.112224
11.
Baker CL, Flores NM, Zou KH, Bruno M, Harrison VJ. Benefits of quitting smoking on work productivity and activity impairment in the United States, the European Union and China. Int J Clin Pract. 2017;71(1):e12900. doi:10.1111/ijcp.12900
12.
Halpern MT, Shikiar R, Rentz AM, Khan ZM. Impact of smoking status on workplace absenteeism and productivity. Tob Control. 2001;10(3):233-238. doi:10.1136/tc.10.3.233
13.
Lidegaard LP, Kristiansen M, Pisinger C. Readiness for implementation of smoke-free work hours in private companies: a qualitative study of perceptions among middle managers. Tob Prev Cessat. 2021;7:38. doi:10.18332/tpc/134800
14.
Titus AR, Kalousova L, Meza R, et al. Smoke-free policies and smoking cessation in the United States, 2003-2015. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(17):3200. doi:10.3390/ijerph16173200
15.
European Commission. Study on smoke-free environments and advertising of tobacco and related products – Final report. 2021. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10....
16.
Henderson E, Lugo A, Liu X, et al. Corrigendum to "Secondhand smoke presence in outdoor areas in 12 European countries" [Environ. Res. 195 (2021) 110806]. Environ Res. 2021;199:111337. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111337
17.
Sureda X, Fernández E, Martínez-Sánchez JM, et al. Secondhand smoke in outdoor settings: smokers' consumption, non-smokers' perceptions, and attitudes towards smoke-free legislation in Spain. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4):e007554. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007554
18.
Alesci NL, Forster JL, Blaine T. Smoking visibility, perceived acceptability, and frequency in various locations among youth and adults. Prev Med. 2003;36(3):272-281. doi:10.1016/s0091-7435(02)00029-4
19.
Federico B, Mackenbach JP, Eikemo TA, Kunst AE. Impact of the 2005 smoke-free policy in Italy on prevalence, cessation and intensity of smoking in the overall population and by educational group. Addiction. 2012;107(9):1677-1686. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03853.x
20.
Sandoval JL, Leão T, Cullati S, et al. Public smoking ban and socioeconomic inequalities in smoking prevalence and cessation: a cross-sectional population-based study in Geneva, Switzerland (1995-2014). Tob Control. 2018;27(6):663-669. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-053986
21.
World Health Organization. World No Tobacco Day 2007 : smoke-free inside : create and enjoy 100% smoke-free environments. WHO; 2007. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.who.int/publicatio...
23.
Sureda X, Fernández E, López MJ, Nebot M. Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in open and semi-open settings: a systematic review. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(7):766-773. doi:10.1289/ehp.1205806
25.
Henderson E, Continente X, Fernández E, et al. Secondhand smoke exposure in outdoor children's playgrounds in 11 European countries. Environ Int. 2021;149:105775. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105775
26.
TackSHS Project Investigators, Henderson E, Lugo A, et al. Secondhand smoke presence in outdoor areas in 12 European countries. Environ Res. 2021;195:110806. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.110806
27.
Boderie NW, Sheikh A, Lo E, et al. Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2023;59:101982. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101982
29.
Smit RA, Garritsen HH, Kunst AE. Diffusion of smoke-free policies at outdoor sports clubs in the Netherlands. Tob Control. 2023;32(6):682-688. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057022
31.
Brison RJ. Risk of automobile accidents in cigarette smokers. Can J Public Health. 1990;81(2):102-106.
32.
Igarashi A, Aida J, Sairenchi T, et al. Does cigarette smoking increase traffic accident death during 20 years follow-up in Japan? The Ibaraki Prefectural Health Study. J Epidemiol. 2019;29(5):192-196. doi:10.2188/jea.JE20170330
33.
Irish Statute Book. Protection of Children’s Health (Tobacco Smoke in Mechanically Propelled Vehicles) Act 2014. 2014. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.irishstatutebook.i...
34.
Journal officiel du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg. Loi du 13 juin 2017 transposant la directive 2014/40/UE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 3 avril 2014 relative au rapprochement des dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives des États membres en matière de fabrication, de présentation et de vente des produits du tabac et des produits connexes; abrogeant la directive 2001/37/CE; modifiant la loi modifiée du 11 août 2006 relative à la lutte antitabac. 2017. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://legilux.public.lu/eli/...
35.
Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia. Act on the Restriction of the Use of Tobacco and Related Products (ZOUTPI). In Slovenian. 2017. Accessed March 20, 2024.
http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pr...
36.
Federal Chancellery of Austria. Federal act on producing and placing on the market of tobacco products and related products as well as advertising tobacco products and related products and the protection of non-smokers (Tobacco and Non-Smoker Protection Act – TNRSG). 2023. Accessed March 20, 2024.
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Doku...
38.
Scheitel M, Stanic M, Neuberger M. PM10, PM2.5, PM1, number and surface of particles at the child’s seat when smoking a cigarette in a car. AIMS Environ Sci. 2016;3(4):582-591. doi:10.3934/environsci.2016.4.582
39.
Leistikow BN, Martin DC, Milano CE. Fire injuries, disasters, and costs from cigarettes and cigarette lights: a global overview. Prev Med. 2000;31(2 Pt 1):91-99. doi:10.1006/pmed.2000.0680
40.
De Marco C, Ruprecht AA, Borgini A, et al. Will smoking on beaches become a thing of the past? Bibione: the first smoke-free beach in Italy. Pulmonology. 2023;29(6):540-542. doi:10.1016/j.pulmoe.2023.06.001
41.
Valmayor S, González K, López MJ, et al. Evaluation of a smoke-free beaches intervention in Barcelona: a quasi-experimental study. Tob Control. 2023. doi:10.1136/tc-2022-057873
42.
Joint Action on Tobacco Control 2-Work Package 8. Report of the consultation on best practices for Smoke and Aerosol Free Environments (SAFE) in the EU. 2023.
43.
Køster B, Brink AL, Clemmensen IH. 'Neighbour smoke'--exposure to secondhand smoke in multiunit dwellings in Denmark in 2010: a cross-sectional study. Tob Control. 2013;22(3):190-193. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050393
44.
Snyder K, Vick JH, King BA. Smoke-free multiunit housing: a review of the scientific literature. Tob Control. 2016;25(1):9-20. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051849
45.
Ferketich AK, Lugo A, La Vecchia C, et al. Relation between national-level tobacco control policies and individual-level voluntary home smoking bans in Europe. Tob Control. 2016;25(1):60-65. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051819
46.
Mons U, Nagelhout GE, Allwright S, et al. Impact of national smoke-free legislation on home smoking bans: findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project Europe Surveys. Tob Control. 2013;22(e1):e2-e9. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2011-050131
47.
Gallus S, Fernandez E. Reaping what you sow: England's drastic reduction in childhood secondhand smoke exposure in two decades. Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2022;15:100334. Published 2022 Feb 28. doi:10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100334
48.
Paoletti L, De Berardis B, Arrizza L, Granato V. Influence of tobacco smoke on indoor PM10 particulate matter characteristics. Atmospheric Environment. 2006;40(18):3269-3280. doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.01.047
51.
Kapan A, Stefanac S, Sandner I, Haider S, Grabovac I, Dorner TE. Use of electronic cigarettes in European populations: a narrative review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(6):1971. doi:10.3390/ijerph17061971
52.
Tattan-Birch H, Brown J, Shahab L, Jackson SE. Trends in use of e-cigarette device types and heated tobacco products from 2016 to 2020 in England. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13203. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92617-x
53.
Znyk M, Jurewicz J, Kaleta D. Exposure to heated tobacco products and adverse health effects, a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12):6651. doi:10.3390/ijerph18126651
54.
Hartmann-Boyce J, Lindson N, Butler AR, et al. Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;11(11):CD010216. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub7
55.
Gallus S, Stival C, McKee M, et al. Impact of electronic cigarette and heated tobacco product on conventional smoking: an Italian prospective cohort study conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tob Control. 2024;33(2):267-270. doi:10.1136/tc-2022-057368
56.
Baenziger ON, Ford L, Yazidjoglou A, Joshy G, Banks E. E-cigarette use and combustible tobacco cigarette smoking uptake among non-smokers, including relapse in former smokers: umbrella review, systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e045603. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045603
57.
O'Brien D, Long J, Quigley J, Lee C, McCarthy A, Kavanagh P. Association between electronic cigarette use and tobacco cigarette smoking initiation in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):954. doi:10.1186/s12889-021-10935-1
58.
Yoong SL, Hall A, Turon H, et al. Association between electronic nicotine delivery systems and electronic non-nicotine delivery systems with initiation of tobacco use in individuals aged < 20 years. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0256044. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256044