Outdoor smoke-free policies at sports clubs across Europe: Current status, recent evidence, and future challenges.

OBJECTIVE: This commentary emphasizes the importance of implementing outdoor smoke-free policies at sports clubs, particularly highlighting their limited adoption across Europe. The primary aim was to assess the progress made in the Netherlands, explore the strategies employed, and outline future challenges. METHODS: Our methodology involved an examination of national regulations and the voluntary adoption of smoke-free policies at sports clubs throughout Europe. We also assessed the adoption and implementation of these policies using recent evidence, leading to the identification of impending challenges in their implementation across Europe. RESULTS: While only a few European countries currently have national legislation prohibiting outdoor smoking at sports clubs, voluntary initiatives promoting such policies have emerged in various nations. Experiences from the Netherlands have demonstrated the feasibility of implementing outdoor smoke-free policies at sports clubs. To expand these policies across Europe, five key challenges need to be addressed: 1) encouraging smoke-free policies at sports clubs that are less inclined to adopt them, 2) ensuring consistent compliance and enforcement of outdoor smoke-free policies, 3) preventing smoking just outside the sports club, 4) garnering support from various stakeholders to ensure widespread adoption of smoke-free sports clubs, and 5) establishing monitoring and evaluation mechanisms for policy implementation. CONCLUSION: The Dutch experiences serve as a testimony to the feasibility of outdoor smoke-free policies at sports clubs. By addressing the remaining challenges, we can create healthier sports environments for children and take substantial steps towards realizing a smoke-free Europe.

Diffusion of smoke-free policies at outdoor sports clubs in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Although outdoor smoke-free policies (SFPs) at sports clubs represent an important new area of tobacco control, the majority of sports clubs are not smoke free. This study aims to assess diffusion patterns of outdoor SFPs at sports clubs in the Netherlands. METHODS: Using a retrospective, registry-based design, an inventory was made of football, field hockey, tennis and korfball clubs that became smoke free between 2016 and 2020. We determined the type of sports, number of members and proportion of youth members. The degree of urbanisation and density of smoke-free sports clubs were measured at the municipality level. The association between sports clubs' characteristics, degree of urbanisation and SFP adoption was analysed using multilevel regression analysis. Horizontal diffusion was tested by analysing the association between the density and annual incidence of smoke-free sports clubs. RESULTS: Since 2016, the number of sports clubs with an outdoor SFP increased from 0.3% to 26.4%. Field hockey and korfball clubs and clubs with many (youth) members were more likely to be smoke-free. SFPs spread from the most urbanised to less urbanised municipalities, which could mostly be attributed to sports clubs' characteristics. A higher density of smoke-free sports clubs within municipalities was associated with an increased incidence of new SFPs in the following year. CONCLUSION: Outdoor SFPs at sports clubs in the Netherlands diffused across horizontal and hierarchical lines. National strategies for smoke-free sports should monitor clubs that are more likely to stay behind, such as football and tennis clubs, smaller clubs and clubs in less urbanised areas.

How sports clubs decide to adopt an outdoor smoke-free policy: a qualitative study applying the Garbage Can Model.

BACKGROUND: Outdoor smoke-free policies (SFPs) at sports clubs can contribute to protecting people from second-hand smoke (SHS). However, in absence of national legislation, it is uncertain whether and how sports clubs decide to adopt an SFP. The aim of this study was to explore the decision-making process at sports clubs in relation to the adoption of an outdoor SFP. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with key stakeholders at 20 Dutch sports clubs (in field hockey, football, tennis, or korfball) with an outdoor SFP. Thematic analysis was applied, and themes were defined in line with the four streams of the Garbage Can Model (GCM). RESULTS: We identified four motivating factors for sports clubs to start the decision-making process: 1) SHS as a problem, 2) intolerance of smoking behavior, 3) advantages of an outdoor SFP, and 4) external pressure to become smoke-free. The decision-making process involved a variety of participants, but the board, influential club members, and smokers usually played major roles. Decisions were discussed during both formal and informal choice opportunities, but only made during formal choice opportunities. With regard to solutions, sports clubs adopted a partial or total outdoor SFP. In addition, sports clubs followed different strategies with regard to the decision-making process, which we classified along two dimensions: 1) autocratic vs. democratic and 2) fast vs. slow. CONCLUSION: A number of factors motivated sports clubs to start the decision-making process. These factors were mainly linked to a strong non-smoking norm. Decision-making involved different participants, with a key role for the board, influential club members, and smokers. Governments and other external organizations may contribute to SFP adoption at sports clubs in several ways. They may advise clubs on strategies of decision-making and how to involve smokers in this process.

Impact of a smoke-free policy on smoking prevalence on hospital grounds: A before-after study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies on the impact of smoke-free policies (SFPs) on hospitals grounds on on-site smoking are scarce. On 1 October 2019, an SFP was implemented on the grounds of the Amsterdam UMC hospital in the Netherlands, including measures for sustained enforcement. This study assessed the impact of this SFP on smoking prevalence on hospital grounds up to 18 months after implementation. METHODS: Observations were systematically conducted 7 weeks before and after the SFP was implemented, and at 5 and 18 months afterwards. A total of 32 sites were included in the study, divided over two hospital locations. On each site, the number of smokers was systematically observed and categorized into staff, patient, student, or visitor. Smoking prevalence on hospital grounds was calculated by the number of observed smokers as a proportion of all people observed. Bubble maps were created to visualize changes in the geographical distribution of smokers. RESULTS: Smoking prevalence on hospital grounds decreased significantly from 17.4% before to 3.3% after implementation of the SFP. Following implementation, the largest decrease was observed in smoking among staff (-96.7%) and patients (-92.3%). The decrease in smoking prevalence was sustained 18 months after implementation (5.0%). The number of smokers decreased on nearly all sites. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial and sustained decrease in smoking prevalence found in this study highlights the potential of SFPs on hospital grounds to protect people from exposure to (secondhand) smoking. Continued enforcement of these SFPs seems essential to ensure ongoing compliance.

Association Between Smoke-Free Legislation in Hospitality Venues and Smoking Behavior of Young People: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: While evaluations of indoor smoke-free legislation have demonstrated major public health benefits among adults, their impact on the smoking behavior of young people remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of the association between smoke-free legislation in hospitality venues and smoking behavior of young people. AIMS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase in June 2020. We searched for studies that assessed the association of any form of smoke-free legislation in any hospitality venue (eg, bar and restaurant) with a smoking behavior outcome (eg, initiation and current smoking) among young people (aged 10-24 years). . RESULTS: Our search yielded 572 articles of which 31 were screened based on full-text and 9 were included in the analysis. All studies were published between 2005 and 2016. The majority of studies used a quasi-experimental design. Four studies evaluated smoke-free legislation in hospitality venues specifically. Two studies reported that comprehensive, but not weaker, smoke-free legislation decreases progression to established smoking. Two other studies provided mixed results on which level of comprehensiveness of legislation would be effective, and which smoking outcomes would be affected. Five studies evaluated legislation that also included other workplaces. Out of these five studies, three studies found significant decreases in current smoking, smoking frequency, and/or smoking quantity, whereas two other studies did not. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the studies found that smoke-free legislation in hospitality venues is associated with a decrease in smoking behavior among young people. Their results indicate the need for comprehensive smoke-free legislation without exemptions. IMPLICATIONS: This is the first systematic review to provide insight into the relationship between smoke-free legislation in hospitality venues and smoking behavior of young people. Our findings show that there is a need for comprehensive smoke-free legislation without exemptions (such as designated smoking areas).

Adolescents' beliefs, attitudes and social norms with regard to smoking and sports: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to explore the beliefs, attitudes and social norms of Dutch adolescents with regard to smoking and sports. In addition, we examine whether there are differences between adolescents at sports clubs with versus without an outdoor smoke-free policy (SFP). DESIGN: Qualitative design in the form of focus group interviews. SETTING: Focus group interviews (n=27) were conducted at 16 sports clubs in the Netherlands. Soccer, tennis, field hockey and korfball clubs were included. Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using MAXQDA. PARTICIPANTS: 180 adolescents aged 13-18 years old were included in the study. All participants signed an informed consent form. For participants younger than 16 years, parental consent was required. RESULTS: With respect to smoking in relation to sports, participants had mostly negative beliefs (ie, smoking has a negative effect on health and sports performance), attitudes (ie, sports and smoking are activities that do not fit together; at sports clubs smoking is not appropriate), and social norms (ie, it is not normal to smoke at sports clubs). The same beliefs, attitudes and social norms were expressed by participants at both sports clubs with and without an outdoor SFP. However, argumentation against smoking was more detailed and more consistent among participants at sports clubs with an outdoor SFP. CONCLUSION: Adolescents have negative beliefs, attitudes and social norms with regard to smoking in relationship to sports. Outdoor SFP at sports clubs might reinforce these negative associations. These findings point to the potential importance of sports in the prevention of adolescent smoking.

Adolescents' support for an outdoor smoke-free policy at sports clubs in the Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Outdoor smoke-free policies (SFPs) at sports clubs may contribute to the prevention of smoking among adolescents. Adolescents' support for such policy is important to its success. The aim of this study is to explore adolescents' perceptions with regard to an outdoor SFP at sports clubs in the Netherlands. METHODS: Focus group discussions (n=27) were held with 180 participants (aged 13-18 years) at 16 sports clubs. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Participants generally supported an outdoor SFP at sports clubs. Five reasons for this support were reported: 1) children should not be exposed to smoking, 2) smoking and sports (clubs) do not fit together, 3) secondhand smoke is undesirable, 4) an outdoor SFP may enhance a sports club's image, and 5) an outdoor SFP contributes to the prevention of smoking. Some participants voiced considerations against an outdoor SFP, arguing amongst others, that smokers need to be taken into account, and that problems may occur with compliance and enforcement. Support for an outdoor SFP was stronger among participants at clubs with an outdoor SFP than among those without such policy. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that adolescents generally support an outdoor smoke-free policy at sports clubs. After implementation, the outdoor SFP was generally experienced as a normal practice. These results could encourage sports clubs without an outdoor SFP to become smoke-free as well.

Smoke-Free Sports in The Netherlands: Why Most Sports Clubs Have Not Adopted an Outdoor Smoke-Free Policy.

Background: Outdoor smoke-free policies (SFPs) at sports clubs represent an important new area of tobacco control, as many people, including youth, spend a large portion of their free time participating in sports. Nevertheless, the majority of sports clubs worldwide still have not adopted an outdoor SFP. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of key stakeholders at different Dutch sports clubs concerning the adoption of an outdoor SFP. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were held with 41 key stakeholders at seven Dutch sports clubs (in field hockey, football, tennis, or korfball) without an outdoor SFP. A thematic approach was used to analyze the data. Results: The majority of respondents reported considerations that were favorable towards adoption of an outdoor SFP, including expected support from club members, changing social norms with regard to smoking, and few members who smoke. Most of all, respondents valued the protection of children from the harmful effects of smoking. However, they also foresaw a number of problems in case of adoption, including impaired social functioning of the sports club, problems with compliance and enforcement, conflict with smokers' interest, and low priority in club management. Conclusions: Although stakeholders at sports clubs recognize the intrinsic value of an outdoor SFP, they foresee practical problems that are inherent to sports clubs. Adoption could be enhanced by articulating the importance of protecting children from the harmful effects of smoking, referring to 'success stories' at sports clubs that are already smoke-free, and actively involving smokers in the adoption process.

Implementation of an outdoor smoke-free policy at sports clubs: Critical situations and determinants influencing implementation.

BACKGROUND: Outdoor smoke-free policies (SFPs) at sports clubs have significant potential to reduce adolescent smoking. However, the realization of this potential may be strongly dependent on how these policies are implemented in practice. The aim of this study is to explore the perceptions of key stakeholders at different sports clubs in the Netherlands concerning how outdoor SFPs are implemented in practice and which determinants influence implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were held with 46 key stakeholders at eight Dutch sports clubs (i.e., field hockey, soccer, tennis, korfball) with an outdoor SFP. A thematic approach was used for the analysis of the transcripts. RESULTS: Overall, respondents perceived the implementation of an outdoor SFP at sports clubs as feasible. The SFP is often enforced, people who smoke react positively when they are approached, the SFP has led to less (visible) smoking at the venue, and a nonsmoking norm is reinforced. However, we identified three 'critical situations' in which implementation is less than optimal: 1) when children are not present at the sports club, 2) when alcohol is involved, and 3) when people who smoke relocate to the entrance of the sports club. Several determinants influenced implementation in those critical situations: 1) determinants related to individual smokers and club members (i.e., support, communication towards people who smoke), 2) determinants related to the SFP itself (i.e., clarity of the policy), 3) determinants related to the sports club (i.e., communication of the policy, characteristics of the sports club), and 4) determinants related to the wider community (i.e., change of social norm with regard to smoking, support from local and national organizations). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an outdoor SFP at sports clubs is feasible because there is a high level of support and experiences are mainly positive. Nevertheless, some situations present challenges to compliance and enforcement. We identified a number of determinants that may facilitate implementation of an outdoor SFP at sports clubs.

Prevalence of Religious and Spiritual Experiences and the Perceived Influence Thereof in Patients With Bipolar Disorder in a Dutch Specialist Outpatient Center.

The aim of the current cross-sectional study was to estimate the prevalence of religious and spiritual (R/S) experiences and their perceived lasting influence in outpatients with bipolar disorder (BD; n = 196). A questionnaire with a range of R/S was constructed, building on the results of an earlier qualitative study. Experiences of horizontal transcendence (not necessarily referring to the divine) such as the experience of "intense happiness, love, peace, beauty, freedom" (77%) or "meaningful synchronicity" (66%) were the most prevalent. The experience of "divine presence" (vertical transcendence, referring to the divine) had a prevalence of 44%. Perceived lasting influence of the experiences was 20% to 67% of the total frequency, depending on the type. Most positive R/S experiences were significantly more related to BD I and mania, and on average, persons with BD I had more R/S experiences (mean = 4.5, SD = 2.6) than those with BD II (mean = 2.8, SD = 2.4, p = 0.000). Patient-reported R/S experiences in BD can have both R/S and pathological features.