Article Text

other Versions

PDF
The impact of reduced ignition propensity cigarette regulation on smoking behaviour in a cohort of Ontario smokers
  1. Richard J O'Connor1,
  2. Brian V Fix1,
  3. David Hammond2,
  4. Gary A Giovino3,
  5. Andrew Hyland1,
  6. Geoffrey T Fong4,5,
  7. K Michael Cummings1
  1. 1Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York, USA
  2. 2Department of Health Studies and Gerontology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Department of Health Behavior, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, USA
  4. 4Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  5. 5Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Brian V Fix, Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Street, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA; brian.fix{at}roswellpark.org

Abstract

This study examined the degree to which legislation intended to reduce the incidence of cigarette-caused fires influenced the behaviours of a cohort of smokers in Ontario. A random digit dialled telephone survey of adult smokers residing in Ontario was conducted in 2005, ending 1 month prior to the reduced ignition propensity (RIP) regulation's implementation date. A follow-up survey was conducted one year later. Of the baseline participants, 73.0% (n=435) completed the follow-up survey. The frequency of fire risk behaviours was similar across both surveys. At baseline, only 3.7% of smokers interviewed reported that their cigarettes went out on their own ‘often’ while smoking. Following the implementation of the reduced ignition propensity legislation, this increased significantly to 14.7%. Results suggest that the proportion of Ontario smokers who reported engaging in behaviour such as leaving a cigarette burning unattended and smoking in bed actually declined, although these declines were not statistically significant across all measures of fire risk.

  • Fires
  • policy
  • behaviour

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding This study was supported by a grant from the US National Cancer Institute (1 RO1 CA117108).

  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute Institutional Review Board.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

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.