Evidence-based practice

          The selected public policy issue is the need for mandatory and enforceable Tobacco-free policies at the workplaces in Kansas. Tobacco use has continued to be a leading cause of preventable mortalities among adults, despite various initiatives to reduce its prevalence. Collected and analyzed data shows that more than 20% of the U.S population is tobacco smokers, which is a worrying trend (Ablah, Dong & Konda, 2017). Tobacco smoking is associated with various negative health implications, which make it necessary to formulate public policy to reduce its prevalence and high mortality rates. The proposed policy issue on mandatory and enforceable tobacco-free policies in the workplaces has a goal of reducing the health impacts of tobacco to both the active and passive smokers.    

            A study by Gao, Zheng, Chapman, and Fu (2011) was conducted in China to evaluate the various workplace smoking control policies and their effect on employee smoking behaviors and attitudes. It was reported that a smoke-free workplace policy could have a significant association with the reduced smoking prevalence and daily cigarette consumption. However, restrictive smoking did not have any impact on employee smoking behaviors. Cigarette smoking is among the most public health challenges that affect the world, hence the need for smoke-free workplace policies due to its value in protecting the non-smoking employees. There is reliable evidence that workplace smoking control policies have a likelihood of impacting smoking prevalence and consumption of cigarettes, especially to the places with such policies for a shorter duration.

            In the earlier years, workplace environments were characterized by smoking in the offices, conference rooms, lunch rooms, restrooms, and other places in the workplace. With time, there has been increasing awareness of negative impacts of smoking of health. Many employees are quitting smoking, and the non-smokers are becoming aware of the potential negative impacts of the secondary smoke on health. There have been progressive attempts by employers to enforce policies on the distance range from the entryway that employers can smoke (Karimi, Ayah & Olewe, 2016). The legislatures also resolved that employees have a right to clean air and smoke-free businesses. For the protection of and enhancing indoor air quality as well as contributing to health and well-being of all employees, companies need are required to be smoke-free. The use of tobacco and smoking products ought to be banned from the workplace to achieve the objectives of the policy.

            The importance of implementing the public policy issue on smoke-free workplaces is reducing the harm on health. Smoking has a negative health effect on the smokers and those around them. It increases the risk of strokes, heart attacks, and other related cardiovascular diseases. It also causes cancer of the lungs, mouth, throat, bladder, kidneys, stomach, and pancreas. Other possible diseases as a result of smoking are bronchitis and tuberculosis which are all associated with chronic illnesses, disability, and premature deaths (Hoffman & Tan, 2015). The number of deaths from tobacco-related diseases is high about other causes, which is a cause for concern. Tobacco also harms non-smokers that are exposed to smoke or the environmental tobacco smoke. Other than smell and irritation of the eyes, the exposure increases the risk of lung cancer and respiratory diseases. The United States registers an estimate of more than 65,000 annual deaths of adult non-smokers from heart disease and about 3,000 non-smokers for lung cancer (Ablah, Dong & Konda, 2017).

            Environmental tobacco smoke is common in the workplaces in various parts of the world. It interacts with chemicals and radiations to produce a multiplicative effect and also increases the risk of occupational diseases. In the short-term, non-smokers may suffer from physical discomfort and annoyance, irritation of the eyes, headaches, and sore throats.  Long-Term exposure may cause heart disease and lung cancer, which are serious negative implications (Holmes & Ling, 2016). For women, smoking affects the health of the baby way before they are born. Smoking women have a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages and can also give birth to low birth weight children or prematurely (Zhang, Hsia, Tu, Xia, Zhang, Bi & Stanton, 2015).  As such, the enactment of policies on smoke-free workplaces helps to reduce the employer’s legal liability, create a safe working environment, and enhance the health outcomes of the employees.

            Employers who are concerned about the health and well being of their employees can create tobacco-free workplaces as required by the state and local governments. A tobacco-free environment creates a safe and healthier workforce and compels tobacco users to quit smoking. The employer benefits from a reduction in the direct health care costs. Lower rates of health, life, and disability health insurance coverage are possible in a workplace where only a handful of employees use tobacco (Lee, Glantz & Millett, 2011). The importance of having a smoke-free workplace policy in place cannot be underestimated. The need to meet the legal requirements and to eliminate the risk of prosecution for failure to comply with regulations on enclosed workplaces requires the implementation of a smoke-free policy (Heathfied, 2016). The strategy helps to promote a healthy corporate image, enhance productivity, reduce absenteeism, and reduce the risk of litigation on compensation costs related to passive smoking illnesses. Research has shown that smoke-free workplace policy plays a major role in reducing smoking prevalence rates and is a major step towards cessation (American Cancer Society, 2017). There has been a consistent reduction in cigarette consumption among the smokers where workplace smoking bans have been implemented. The smoke-free policy in the workplace prevents the uptake of smoking by the younger employees (World Health Organization, 2015). The costs as a result of smoking are of importance to employers. The economic impacts due to smoking include reduced health status of employees, lost productivity, and premature deaths and retirement.

            In a study by Houle and Siegel (2011), a discussion of the potential public health consequences of the policies that barred employment to smokers was provided. The move towards the promotion of smoke-free workplaces for employees has been embraced in various companies to safeguard the right of non-smokers to clear the air. The implementation of indoor air laws has been considered as a protection of the public from secondary smoke in public places and workplaces. The policies are supported by the public health and tobacco control organizations but are instituted by employers. There are several reasons postulated for implementing smoke-free workplace policies. Employers cite the alignment of the workforce with organizational culture and the need to control the rising health care costs. The opponents to the adoption of the smoke-free workplace policies have based their arguments on discrimination and privacy infringement. The Tobacco Control community supported the policies with the view that they save employers resources by reducing the health care costs and encouraging smokers to quit the behavior. Houle and Siegel (2011) designed a model to consider the effects of smoke-free workplace policies based on empirical evidence as opposed to smoke-free workplace policies. It is important to analyze the potential implications with a focus on the employer, non-smoking employees, and the smokers. The strategy ensures that the implementation of the policy does not infringe on anyone’s rights and also serves the best interest of the majority, but also respects that of the minority.

Recommended Interventions      

            It has been established from research that tobacco-free workplace policies can have significant impacts both to the employee and the employer, and the general public at large. As such, there is a need for some recommendations on how best to deal with the issue. One of the best interventions is offering training on the essence of having a clean and healthy workplace environment. Some of the smoking employees may be unaware of the potential health and environmental implications that are associated with tobacco smoking (Lee, Glantz & Millett, 2011). They need to understand the effect of smoking tobacco on their health both for the short term and the long term. Training would also be essential to create awareness of the rights of the non-smokers who are commonly affected as passive smokers with nothing to do (Myers, 2016). They need to understand that law protects them and that the employer has an obligation of safeguarding their right to clear and quality indoor air. Employers can protect the health of their employees and reduce the costs of smoking by ensuring that the workplaces are smoke-free and also implementing the programs that encourage smokers to quit. The smoke-free policies are implemented easily and complied with if the employees take part in developing the policy and are fully-informed about its purpose.

            The main goal of the implementation of the policies should be having a completely smoke-free workplace (Zhang, Hsia, Tu, Xia, Zhang, Bi & Stanton, 2015). In practice, no safe level of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is safe, and even ventilation cannot fully protect employees from exposure. The practice of having enclosed smoking rooms can be implemented as a short-term measure, but ought to be phased out with time.

            There can also be smoking cessation programs that make the implementation of smoke-free workplaces easier and more efficient than having it without such programs. Worksite cessation programs benefit both the employee and the employer and are effective in reducing smoking prevalence rates to the people at high risk. Various studies have reported high quit rates after the implementation of smoking cessation programs. Such programs have been found to be cost-effective and require low-costs of operation (Uang, Hiilamo & Glantz, 2016).

            With increased awareness of the harm caused by tobacco and its products both to smokers and the people near them, the actualization of smoke-free environments is becoming a reality. There is also increased shift towards safe and clean indoor environments on a global scale (American Cancer Society, 2017). As such, the employer ought to communicate the details of the policy to the employees, provide information and support to the smokers, provide training, and evaluate the implementation impacts regularly for effectiveness.       

Important Ethical considerations

            In the implementation of the smoke-free workplace environments, there are certainly ethical issues of consideration.  As evident in the resources reviewed, the participants in the studies were required to show their consent in sharing information for research purposes. It helps to ensure that data is acquired voluntarily without any external influence or coercion. The implementation of smoke-free workplace policies involves a consideration of the rights of both the smokers and non-smokers. In most instances, the rights of smokers are ignored such as the infringement of their privacy and likelihood of discrimination against their personalities. They are important ethical issues to consider in the policy implementation process for enhanced effectiveness. Other issues of concern regard to confidentiality, and safety of the information shared by any participant in the studies. It is mandatory to safeguard the safety of all the information shared as relevant for the formulation of the smoke-free policy.

Conclusion

            There is need for mandatory tobacco-free policies in the workplace environment to help in lowering the prevalence rates to tobacco-related health, economic, and environmental impacts. The policies can also be essential in encouraging tobacco cessation and possible quitting due to the negative implications associated with its use. The implementation of tobacco-free policies in the workplace requires a consideration of all the underlying factors to ensure that it acts in the best interests of both smokers and non-smokers. 

References

Ablah, E., Dong, F., & Konda, K. (2017). Tobacco-free policies at worksites in Kansas: BMC Public Health, 17, 566. 

American Cancer Society (2017) Tobacco use in the workplace: A model policy. 

Gao, J., Zheng, P., Gao, J., Chapman, S., & Fu, H. (2011). Workplace smoking policies and their association with male employees’ smoking behaviours: a cross-sectional survey in one company in China. Tobacco Control, 20(2), 131–136.

Heathfied S. (2016) Smoke free workplace policy for your company: No smoking.

Hoffman, S. J., & Tan, C. (2015). Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies. BMC public health, 15(1), 744.

Holmes, L. M., & Ling, P. M. (2016). Workplace secondhand smoke exposure: a lingering hazard for young adults in California. Tobacco control, tobaccocontrol-2016.

Houle, B., & Siegel, M. (2011). Smoker-Free Workplace Policies: Developing a Model of Public Health Consequences of Workplace Policies Barring Employment to Smokers. Tobacco Control, 18(1), 64–69. 

Karimi, K. J., Ayah, R., & Olewe, T. (2016). Adherence to the Tobacco Control Act, 2007: presence of a workplace policy on tobacco use in bars and restaurants in Nairobi, Kenya. BMJ open, 6(9), e012526.

Carolyn Morgan is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in nursing research paper writing service California. If you need a similar paper you can place your order from nursing paper writing services Pennsylvania.