Structured Abstract on Provided article

    Structured Abstract on Provided article

    Students will be called on for summaries or key ?take away? points from readings assigned attached article. Use the provided format to complete the paper
    This unit is Public Finance in Health Care
    Write clearly please and fill up the provided format with 500 words using your own words.

    Context: Smokefree legislation is a powerful public health intervention. Despite progress in smokefree
    legislation, over half of U.S. adults remain unprotected by comprehensive smokefree legislation.
    Evidence acquisition: This paper reviews the scientific literature on health and economic outcome
    studies of smokefree legislation from the past decade, 2000 to early 2010, using MEDLINE and
    key search terms: smoking, smoking cessation, smoking/legislation and jurisprudence, smoking cessation/
    legislation and jurisprudence, and health policy.
    Evidence synthesis: There is a wealth of research showing the health benefits to entire populations
    when communities implement comprehensive smokefree laws and/or regulations. These laws
    improve the health of hospitality workers and the general population by improving indoor air
    quality, reducing acute myocardial infarctions and asthma exacerbations, and improving infant and
    birth outcomes. Some studies report reduced smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption and
    improved cessation outcomes after smokefree legislation. In addition to the health benefits, economic
    studies confirm that smokefree laws do not adversely affect business revenues or operating
    costs.
    Conclusions: While there is an abundance of smokefree policy outcomes research showing both
    the health and economic impacts of smokefree legislation, these outcomes may have more to do with
    implementation effectiveness than adoption, especially among subpopulations. An emerging body of
    literature documents not only that disparities in health protections remain among subpopulations,
    but that health outcomes of smokefree legislation may vary by gender, race/ethnicity, SES, and age.
    Further research is needed on implementation effectiveness of smokefree legislation and differential
    effects on subpopulations.
    (Am J Prev Med 2010;39(6S1):S66 –S76) © 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine
    Introduction
    Smokefree legislation is a powerful public health intervention.
    1 There is a wealth of research showing
    the health benefits to entire populations when communities
    implement smokefree laws and/or regulations.
    Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) decreases, indoor
    air quality improves, workers are protected, adult and
    youth smoking levels decrease, smokers are more likely to
    quit, acute myocardial infarctions (AMI) and asthma exacerbations
    decline, and infant/birth outcomes may improve.
    In addition to health benefits, economic studies
    confirm that smokefree laws do not hurt business revenues
    or operating costs.
    Smokefree laws reduce exposure to SHS. After Scotland’s
    smokefree legislation was implemented, there was
    a 39% reduction in salivary cotinine among nonsmoking
    primary schoolchildren, especially among those with
    nonsmoking parents,2 and a similar reduction in adults.3
    Similarly, adults in Spain self-reported an overall 22%
    reduction in exposure to SHS following their smokefree
    law, with the greatest reductions in the workplace.4 A
    New Zealand study recruited volunteer patrons and measured
    salivary cotinine before and after a 3-hour visit to a
    bar, and reported a 90% reduction after the smokefree
    legislation.5 Further, the more extensive the smokefree
    law, the lower the serum cotinine among nonsmoking
    adults.6 Massachusetts adults living in a town with strong
    restaurant and bar smoking restrictions self-reported
    lower exposure to SHS compared to those living in towns
    that allowed smoking in restaurants and bars.7
    From the Kentucky Center for Smoke-Free Policy, College of Nursing and
    College of Public Health, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
    Address correspondence to: Ellen J. Hahn, PhD, RN, Director, Tobacco
    Policy Research Program, Kentucky Center for Smoke-Free Policy, University
    of Kentucky, 751 Rose Street, Lexington KY 40536-0232. E-mail:
    [email protected].
    0749-3797/$17.00
    doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.08.013
    S66 Am J Prev Med 2010;39(6S1):S66–S76 © 2010 American Journal of Preventive Medicine • Published by Elsevier Inc.

     

     

     

    ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

                                                                                                                                      Order Now