Environmental tobacco smoke: Surveys of restaurant patrons and hospitality industry personnel Lisa Trotter 43
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 Introduction Conclusive evidence that passive smoking can be harmful to health has been accumulated over the past 20 years and, in the mid eighties, the NHMRC, and many equivalent organisations in other countries, concluded from reviews of scientific evidence that passive smoking affects health. Although smoking has been banned in many public places and there is a high level of public support for restrictions on smoking in public places, smoking still remains largely unrestricted in restaurants. In Australia, public support to ban smoking in workplaces, restaurants and shopping centres is very high (over 70%) (Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services 1993). A survey of restaurant patrons in Melbourne conducted in 1991 (Mullins 1991) indicated that 91% of patrons thought there should be restrictions on smoking in restaurants. An even higher proportion (97%) of people were found to favour restrictions on smoking in restaurants in a NSW household survey in 1992 (Roberts et al. 1992). There is also support, although not so high, for banning smoking in pubs and clubs (42%) or open air public places (16%) (Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services 1993). The literature does give some clues as to why some restaurants are reluctant to enforce smoking restrictions. Restaurant managers have been found to underestimate their clientele s preference for non-smoking areas and restaurant patrons do not always assert their preference (Schofield et al. 1993, Mullins and Morand 1996). Restaurateurs have also expressed concern over loss of business, logistics (lack of space) and difficulties in enforcement (Schofield et al. 1993, Sciacca 1996). Nevertheless, there appears to be growing concern in the hospitality industry about potential litigation by employees for damages associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. As employers, hospitality establishments are obliged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to provide a safe workplace for their employees and for those who visit their premises. A review of restaurant and bar employee exposure to the health effects of passive smoking found levels of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) to be higher in restaurants and bars than offices and residences with at least one smoker and concluded that ETS is a significant occupational health hazard for food service workers (Siegal 1993). Recent legislative precedent, being set in some Australian states and territories, is also highlighting the issue. 44
Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry In 1997, Quit conducted two surveys to investigate opinion on smoking in restaurants and other hospitality venues. Patrons dining in Melbourne restaurants and hospitality personnel attending an industry conference were surveyed. Survey of Melbourne restaurant patrons The aim of this survey of restaurant patrons was to investigate patrons views on smoking restrictions and their preferences for smoking or non-smoking seating. Method Sample A sample of 1,769 people dining in 44 Melbourne restaurants on Friday 18 April, 1997 completed a short questionnaire. The participating restaurants were asked to indicate how many patrons dined on the night of the survey so that the response rate for patrons could be determined. Fifty-nine per cent of patrons who dined out at the participating restaurants completed questionnaires. Of the 144 restaurants that were selected from the telephone book to participate (a sequential sample of one in four, excluding restaurants in food courts, and those with a capacity less than 20 or fast food/take away), 51 restaurants agreed to participate and 44 returned the questionnaires (a response rate of 31%). All restaurant managers were asked to answer some questions whether or not they had agreed to participate. There was a 60% response rate to the manager questions (n=87). Procedure A letter of explanation and invitation was sent to managers with a return slip and a self-addressed envelope. They were asked to return the slip even if they did not want to participate. Restaurant managers were encouraged to participate by being offered a report on their customers views and a chance of a dining voucher worth $100 being won by a patron to use at their premises. Questionnaire cards (with incentive to patrons to win a dining voucher) and instructions to managers were sent to the participating restaurants and reminder telephone calls were made the day before the survey. A short set 45
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 of questions were asked of the managers when they were telephoned. On the night of the survey, managers placed a questionnaire card at each dining place on tables and collected them as diners left. The questionnaires were then returned in a pre-paid envelope. Managers were also asked to note on the envelope the number of diners who attended the restaurant on the survey night. Results The patrons Twenty-six per cent of the restaurant patrons were smokers compared to 25% in the general population, 46% were male compared to 47% and 40% were aged between 30 and 49 compared to 39%. There were more younger people (aged less than 30) in the restaurant patron sample (35%) compared to the general population (23%) and fewer older people (50 plus; 25% cf. 38%). The smoking status and demographic characteristics of the sample are similar to the Victorian population (Mullins, Morand and Borland 1996) except that older people are under represented and younger people are over represented. The restaurants No significant differences were found between the restaurants participating and not participating in relation to the type of smoking restrictions enforced or the size of the restaurant. Of 86 restaurants, including participating and non-participating restaurants, only 49% had smoking restrictions. Fifty-one per cent allowed smoking anywhere, 25% allowed smoking at allocated tables (not in separate room to other tables), 15% restricted smoking to separate areas (separated by a wall) and 8% didn t allow smoking anywhere. Of those with smoking restrictions, 86% commenced their smoking policy in the years between 1990 and 1997. Among those restaurants that had smoking restrictions, the amount of floorspace allocated for non-smoking areas was less than half in 81% of cases. The restaurants varied in size: 27% had 20 50 diners on a Friday night, 46% had 51 160 diners and 27% had more than 160 diners. Opinions about allowing smoking in restaurants Restaurant patrons were asked Which statement best describes your opinion about allowing smoking in restaurants? -do not allow anywhere, 46
Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry allow smoking, but only in smoking areas that are well separated from smoking areas, allow smoking at allocated tables, allow smoking anywhere. The vast majority (97%) held the opinion that smoking should be restricted in restaurants. Only 3% thought that smoking should be allowed anywhere, 53% thought that smoking should only be allowed in special areas and 44% thought that smoking should not be allowed anywhere. Opinions held by patrons about allowing smoking in restaurants varied with smoking status (p<.001) (see Table 1). Smokers were less likely to support not allowing smoking anywhere (10%) than ex-smokers (50%) and people who had never smoked (59%). Rather, smokers were more inclined to support smoking being allowed in separate areas (50%) or at allocated tables (33%). The option of allowing smoking at allocated tables received little support from ex-smokers (8%) and people who have never smoked (4%). Table 1: Opinions about allowing smoking in restaurants Smoking status Total Smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked n= 1761 460 388 913 Don t allow 44% 10% 50% 59% Separate areas 41% 50% 41% 36% Allocated tables 12% 33% 8% 4% Allow anywhere 3% 7% 1% 1% Preference for dining in smoking or non-smoking areas Patrons were asked Do you prefer to eat in a smoking area, a nonsmoking area or do not mind?. The proportion of patrons who said that they preferred to eat in non-smoking areas was 76% (see Table 2). Only 8% said that they preferred to sit in a smoking area and 15% said that they didn t mind. As expected, preference was strongly related to smoking status (p<.001). However, it is notable that 30% of smokers said that they prefer to sit in a non-smoking area which is greater than the 28% who said they preferred a smoking area. 47
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 Table 2: Preference for dining in smoking or non-smoking areas Smoking status Total Smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked n= 1762 458 389 915 Smoking 8% 28% 1% 1% Non-smoking 76% 30% 89% 94% Don t mind 15% 42% 10% 5% Request for non-smoking area when booking Patrons were asked If you prefer to eat in a non-smoking area, do you request a non-smoking area when you book at a restaurant?. Of those who preferred to eat in a non-smoking area (n=1,307), 66% said that they always request a non-smoking area when booking and 27% per cent said that they sometimes request a non-smoking area. Smokers preferring non-smoking areas were less likely to ask for them regularly, but did sometimes (p<.001)(see Table 3). Table 3: Request for non-smoking area when booking Smoking status Total Smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked n= 1307 130 337 840 Always 66% 39% 64% 71% Sometimes 27% 50% 26% 24% Never 7% 11% 10% 5% Influence of provision of smoking or non-smoking areas on choice of restaurant Restaurant patrons were asked When going out, do you try to choose a restaurant which allows smoking anywhere, try to choose a restaurant which offers non-smoking areas or choose a restaurant regardless of the availability of non-smoking areas. Fifty-four per cent of the sample said 48
Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry that they would try to choose a restaurant which offers non-smoking areas. Only 7% said that they would choose a restaurant which allows smoking anywhere and 39% said that they would choose a restaurant regardless of the availability of a non-smoking area (see Table 4). Choice of restaurant for smoking or non-smoking areas was associated with smoking status (p<.001). Among non-smokers, a majority (64%) would choose non-smoking areas and nearly a quarter of smokers (23%) would choose non-smoking areas. Table 4: Choice of restaurant for smoking or non-smoking areas Smoking status Total Smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked n= 1759 455 388 916 Smoking 7% 24% 2% 1% Non-smoking 54% 23% 60% 67% Regardless 39% 53% 38% 32% Analyses were also conducted to investigate associations between choice of restaurant for smoking or non-smoking areas and age, sex, dining frequency, the size of the restaurant and restrictions enforced in the restaurant where the patron was dining on the night of the survey, controlling for smoking status. The only statistically significant demographic association found was for age (p<.001). Older people (aged 30 years and over) said that they try to choose a restaurant which offers non-smoking areas (63%) more often than younger people (aged less than 30; 44%) and younger people said that they try to choose a restaurant regardless of the availability of non-smoking areas (50%) more often than older people (30%). Comparison with 1991 restaurant patron survey A similar restaurant study was conducted in 1991 (Mullins 1991). In addition to age, sex and smoking status, the 1991 survey asked two questions, the first of which was included for use in this study. The question Which statement best describes your opinion about allowing smoking in restaurants? was repeated verbatim in the 1997 survey. 49
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 The proportion of patrons in the 1991 study who said that there should be smoking restrictions was 91%. This proportion has significantly increased (p<.05) from 91% to 97% in the 1997 study (see Table 5). The proportion saying that smoking should not be allowed at all is notably larger in the more recent study (44%) compared to the 1991 study (36%). Because the 1991 survey sample had a higher proportion of smokers (34%) compared to the sample in this survey (26%), a comparison was conducted controlling for smoking status: the difference was found to be significant regardless of smoking status. Table 5: Comparison of 1991 and 1997 restaurant patron survey results: opinion on smoking restrictions 1991 1997 Not allow at all 36% 44% Allow in special places 55% 53% Allow anywhere 8% 3% Restaurant manager opinions Restaurant managers were asked what they thought their customers opinions on smoking in restaurants might be. A comparison of their responses to the opinions expressed by patrons on the night of the survey show that restaurant managers underestimate the demand for restrictions on smoking. Half of the managers thought that more than 25% of their customers would want smoking to be allowed anywhere whereas only 3% of patrons actually said they would want this. Discussion The results indicate that patrons in Melbourne restaurants are overwhelmingly (97%) in favour of smoking restrictions being enforced in restaurants. The majority (55%) of non-smokers were in favour of not allowing smoking at all, whereas only 10% of smokers agreed with this. Smokers were more inclined to support separate areas (50%) or allocated tables (33%) for smoking, whereas non-smokers gave little support to the idea of allocated tables (6%) and saw separate areas for smoking as the next best option (39%). 50
Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry The high level of support for smoking restrictions indicated in this survey is consistent with previous studies in both Victoria (Mullins 1991) and NSW (Roberts et al. 1992). A comparison between the Victorian study conducted in 1991 and the current study shows that a significant increase has occurred. This difference is most apparent in relation to the opinion that smoking should not be allowed at all: an increase from 36% in 1991 to 44% in 1997. The 1997 survey indicates most (76%) restaurant patrons prefer to eat in non-smoking areas and only 8% said that they would prefer to sit in a smoking area. A comparison with results from a household survey conducted in 1995 (Mullins, Morand and Borland 1996) indicates a shift in preference to non-smoking areas of 7%. A striking finding is that 30% of smokers said that they prefer to sit in a non-smoking area which is a higher proportion than the 28% of smokers who said that they would prefer to sit in a smoking area. It may be that these smokers are bothered by the smoke even though they smoke themselves. Results from a household survey conducted in Victoria in 1993 (Borland and Mullins 1994) support this suggestion: 38% of smokers reported being bothered slightly or a lot by environmental tobacco smoke. This was compared to a household survey conducted in Victoria in 1995 (Mullins, Morand and Borland 1996) where only 15% of smokers said they prefer non-smoking areas in restaurants. Whether this is due to a change in attitudes over two years or to smokers who go to restaurants being more likely to prefer smokefree areas than the general population is not clear. Of those who said they preferred to eat in a non-smoking area, the majority (66%) said that they always request a non-smoking area when booking and 27% said that they sometimes request a non-smoking area. These figures are higher than those found in a Victorian household survey conducted in 1995 (Mullins, Morand and Borland 1996): 56% said they always request a non-smoking area and 18% said that they sometimes request a nonsmoking area. Although almost a third of smokers said that they prefer to sit in a non-smoking area they were less likely to ask for them regularly when booking. The majority (54%) of patrons said that they try to choose a restaurant which offers non-smoking areas and very few patrons (7%) said that they try to choose a restaurant which allows smoking anywhere. Thirty-nine per cent of patrons choose a restaurant regardless of the availability of nonsmoking areas. Although smokers were less likely to choose a restaurant for non-smoking areas (24%), they were no more likely to choose a restaurant for smoking areas (24%). Younger people are more likely to 51
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 choose a restaurant regardless of the availability of non-smoking areas compared to older people. This may be because younger people choose a restaurant more spontaneously, because they are less assertive in acting on their preferences or because they are less bothered by passive smoking. Despite the high level of support for restricting smoking, restaurants providing smokefree dinning are still in the minority. A survey of restaurant managers (n=87), conducted in conjunction with the patron survey, showed that only 49% of restaurants have smoking restrictions. This may be because restaurant managers are unaware of the views of their customers on smoking restrictions. This is supported by the finding that more than half of restaurant managers think that at least 25% of their customers would want smoking to be allowed anywhere when in fact only 3% want this. In conclusion, the study confirms community support for predominantly smokefree dining, with support greater than in previous surveys. As smokefree dining is increasingly becoming a reality, the strengthened views suggest that the vast majority of restaurant patrons notice the difference and have a clear preference for dining in a smokefree environment. However, many restaurants seem to be unaware of the strong demand for smokefree dining. Survey of hospitality industry personnel The aim of this study was to survey people who work in the hospitality industry to find out about their experience of being exposed to tobacco smoke in the workplace and their opinions on legislation to ban smoking in enclosed places for eating and drinking. Method Sample It is not easy to access a broad sample of hospitality workers efficiently in normal circumstances. However, an excellent opportunity was provided by the International 11th Foodservice Exhibition which took place on the 14, 15 and 16 of April, 1997. An intercept survey was conducted over the three days of the Foodservice Expo. Interviewers screened out respondents who did not work in the hospitality industry or who did not work in establishments that served food and/or drink (eg equipment manufacturers / suppliers, training companies). Respondents that worked in healthcare 52
Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry facilities, retail food shops, fast food restaurants and supermarkets were also excluded because smoking restrictions are already enforced in these venues. A total of 178 people were included in the analysis. The majority of respondents worked in restaurants/cafes (37%) and hotels/motels (29%). Respondents also worked in pubs/clubs (16%), and other establishments (18%). In this survey, hotels referred to establishments offering accommodation and clubs referred to sporting and gambling clubs. About half of the respondents (49%) were owners/managers: the other half were cooking and waiting staff. Seventy per cent of respondents said that the establishment in which they worked had smoking restrictions (it is possible that smoking bans in kitchen areas were included in this response). Total bans on smoking were enforced in 26% of cases and smoking was allowed in special places in 43% of cases; 29% allowed smoking anywhere. Two per cent of respondents said there were time restrictions on smoking. Results Experience of environmental tobacco smoke Respondents who worked in establishments where smoking was allowed (n=126), were asked Does smoking bother you while you are at work?. Nearly half (46%) reported that smoke bothered them either always or sometimes (29% always, 17% sometimes), 6% said it rarely bothered them and 48% said it never bothered them. Respondents who were ex-smokers or had never smoked were more likely to report being bothered by smoke than smokers: 65% ex-smokers, 59% never smoked and 21% current smokers (p<.001) (see Table 1). Table 1: Bothered by smoke while at work by smoking status Smoking status Total Smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked n= 126 47 23 56 Bothered 46% 21% 65% 59% Not bothered 54% 79% 35% 41% 53
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 The respondents who worked in establishments where smoking was allowed were also asked Do you think smoking bothers the customers where you work?. Twenty-six per cent thought that smoking bothered most customers and 49% thought that smoking bothered a few customers. A statistically significant relationship was found between opinions on smoke bothering customers and beliefs about passive smoking (p<.05): respondents who believed that passive smoking could have major health effects were more likely to be of the opinion that smoke was bothering the customers than those who thought passive smoking only had minor health effects or caused irritation (see Table 2). Beliefs about passive smoking was not related to smoking status. Table 2: Customers bothered by passive smoking beliefs Total Irritation Health problems Minor Major n= 118 41 40 37 None 22% 32% 12% 22% A few 50% 56% 55% 38% Most 28% 12% 33% 40% Concern about legal action in the hospitality industry Participants were told that Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, it is possible that a case could be brought against an employer for not providing a safe workplace for their employees or for those who visit their premises because smoking was not restricted.. They were then asked if they thought that this is a concern for the hospitality industry. The majority (83%) said yes and 17% said no (see Table 3). A significant relationship was found between concern about legal action and position in organisation (p<.05). Owner/managers were more concerned about legal action (90%) than staff (77%) (see Table 3). 54
Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry Table 3: Concern about legal action in the hospitality industry by position in organisation Total Owner/manager Staff n= 166 79 87 Yes 83% 90% 77% No 17% 10% 23% Opinion on smoking restrictions When asked What smoking restrictions do you think there should be in your (establishment)?, only 4% said smoking should be allowed anywhere, 45% said smoking should not be allowed at all and 51% said smoking should only be allowed in special places. A comparison between results from this survey and a study of restaurant patrons conducted in 1997 (Trotter unpublished) shows that the views of people working in the hospitality industry are almost the same as those held by restaurant patrons. In this study, 45% of respondents said smoking should not be allowed at all compared to 44% of restaurant patrons and 51% said that smoking should be allowed in special places compared to 53% of restaurant patrons. Table 4: Opinion on smoking restrictions by smoking status Smoking status Total Smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked n= 177 61 41 75 Not allow at all 45% 23% 54% 57% Special places 51% 70% 46% 39% Allow anywhere 4% 7% 0% 4% A significant relationship was found between smoking status and opinion on smoking restrictions (p<.01) (see Table 4). Very few smokers (7%) and non-smokers (4%) thought that smoking should be allowed anywhere. Smokers were most in favour of allowing smoking in special places (70%), and a notable 23% of smokers said that they would prefer smoking to be not allowed at all. Ex-smokers and those who have never smoked favoured 55
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 not allowing smoking at all (54%, 57%) more often than smoking in special places (46%, 39%). Respondents who worked in places where there was a total ban on smoking generally held a consistent opinion that smoking should not be allowed at all (80%) or should be allowed only in special places (20%). However, the opinions of respondents who worked in places with limited or no restrictions were not consistent. Of those who worked in places that allowed smoking in special places, 63% agreed with this level of restriction and 36% thought that smoking should not be allowed at all. Of those who worked in places that allowed smoking anywhere, only 11% agreed with this, 62% thought that smoking should only be allowed in special places and 27% thought that smoking shouldn t be allowed at all. Opinion on legislation to ban smoking in eating and drinking places When asked Do you think there should be legislation to ban smoking in enclosed places for eating and drinking?, 61% said yes, 39% said no. A significant relationship was found between opinions on legislation and smoking status (p<.05) (see Table 5). As would be expected, smokers were less likely to support legislation (43%) than ex-smokers (62%) or people who have never smoked (75%). However, it is notable that nearly half of the smokers supported legislation to ban smoking. Table 5: Opinion on legislation to ban smoking by smoking status Smoking status Total Smoker Ex-smoker Never smoked n=163 n=53 n=42 n=68 Yes 61% 43% 62% 75% No 39% 57% 38% 25% Respondents were asked What would be the advantages if a total ban on smoking in enclosed places was introduced by legislation?. Of all the responses given, 41% said none, 30% said it would create a more healthy environment for customers and staff, 8% said it would put restaurants on an equal footing and 8% said it would make smoking restrictions easier to enforce. A range of other advantages were mentioned, including food 56
Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry would be better appreciated, would get more non-smoking customers, there would be less complaints and the premises would be cleaner. The most frequently mentioned disadvantage was loss of business (43%). The next most frequent responses given were none (32%) and inconvenience (12%). Other disadvantages mentioned were that it would be difficult to enforce and discrimination against smokers. Discussion The results indicate that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work is perceived as a concern by people working in the hospitality industry. Of those who worked in establishments where smoking was allowed, a large proportion of both staff and managers reported being bothered by smoke at work (46%). This was particularly high among ex-smokers (65%) and people who have never smoked (59%). Also, many respondents held the opinion that customers were bothered by smoke. Twenty-six per cent thought that smoking bothered most customers and 49% thought that smoking bothered a few customers. The opinion that customers were bothered by smoke was not associated with smoking status but was related to beliefs about passive smoking. Respondents who think that passive smoking could have major health effects were more likely to report that customers were bothered by smoke (78%) than respondents who think that passive smoking only causes irritation (68%). It is not clear whether being better informed about the effects of passive smoking creates a greater awareness of customers being bothered by passive smoking or a perception that more customers are bothered than is actually the case. The survey indicated that people working in the hospitality industry are concerned about possible legal action over exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. This concern was expressed more by managers (90%) than staff (77%). Almost all the respondents (96%) thought that there should be smoking restrictions where they worked. Those who worked in places that had smoking restrictions generally agreed with the restrictions, whereas, those that worked in places with limited or no smoking restrictions thought that there should be a greater restriction on smoking. There was also significant support for legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public places for eating and drinking. The majority of 57
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 respondents (61%) favoured legislation and nearly half (43%) of the smokers favoured legislation. This level of support is particularly high given that the question referred to legislation that included drinking as well as eating places. The opinions of the hospitality industry, according to this survey, are consistent with the opinions of the general public. A household survey conducted in 1993 (McAllister 1995) indicated that there was strong public support in Australia for banning smoking in restaurants/cafes (73%) and pubs/clubs (42%). A reluctance to support legislation might be explained by respondents comments on what the advantages and disadvantages of legislation might be if it were introduced. Even though a large proportion of respondents recognised the advantage of creating a more healthy environment for customers and staff (30% of responses), many also expressed concern about loss of business (43% of responses). The proportion of respondents who reported smoking restrictions in their establishment (70%) seems quite high compared to the finding that 49% of Melbourne restaurants enforce restrictions (Trotter unpublished). This could be because hospitality industry respondents referred to health regulations banning smoking in kitchens, inflating the estimates here compared to those that relate to eating areas. Conclusion In conclusion, there is no doubt that people who work in the hospitality industry are concerned about staff and customers being exposed to environmental tobacco smoke and there is a high level of support for the enforcement of smoking restrictions and legislation to ban smoking in eating and drinking places. However, concerns over possible loss of business may be holding hospitality establishments back from acting according to their concerns and opinions. 58
References Chapter 3: Environmental tobacco smoke and the hospitality industry Andrews B. Demand for smoke-free dining (Letter). The Medical Journal of Australia. 1992: 157(11). Andrews B. Patron choice of non-smoking or smoking areas at a large restaurant in rural Australia: a four year study. Tobacco Control 1995: 4, 129 131. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Estimated resident population by sex and age, Preliminary June 1996, Cat. No. 3201.0, ABS Canberra. Borland R, Mullins, R. How bothered are people by environmental tobacco smoke? (Letter). The Medical Journal of Australia. 1994: 160(5). Department of Health, Housing, Local Government and Community Services. Knowledge, attitudes and policy preferences concerning drugs. Ref No. A41331, Catalogue No. 93 24549. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1993. McAllister I. Public opinion in Australia on restricting smoking in public places. Tobacco Control, 1995: 4, 30 35. Mullins R, Morand M. Environmental tobacco smoke: public opinion and behaviour. In Mullins R (ed). Quit Evaluation Studies No. 8. Melbourne: Victorian Smoking and Health Program, 1996. Mullins R. A survey of patrons of Melbourne restaurants on the provision of smokefree dining. Melbourne: The Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, 1991. Mullins R, Morand M & Borland R. Key findings of the 1994 and 1995 household surveys. In Mullins R, (ed). Quit Evaluation Studies No. 8. Melbourne: Victorian Smoking and Health Program, 1996. Padki K. Restaurants policies do not reflect public s preferences (Letter). British Medical Journal, 1996: 313. Roberts C, Algert C, Chey T, Capon A. Community attitudes to smoking in restaurants (Letter). The Medical Journal of Australia. 1992: 157 (8). Schofield MJ, Considine R, Boyle CA, Sanson-Fisher R. Smoking control in restaurants: the effectiveness of self-regulation in Australia. American Journal of Public Health 1993: 83, 1284 1288. Schofield MJ, Edwards K. Community attitudes to bans on smoking licensed premises. Australian Journal of Public Health, 1995: 19(4). Sciacca JP. A mandatory smoking ban in restaurants: concerns versus experiences. Journal of Community Health, 1996: 21(2). Siegal M. Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace. Journal of the American Medical Association, July 28, 1993: 270(4). Tilse M, Hawes E, Siskind M. You get what you ask for towards a smoke free hospitality industry, Winter School in the Sun Queensland Health, 1993. 59
Quit Evaluation Studies No 9 1996 1997 60