Use of Tobacco within the Work Environment - Research Paper Example

? Tobacco Use  Tobacco Use The establishment of programs, incentives and policies to develop smoke-free work places help not only to diminish employer costs, but also enable workers who want to quit smoking to attain the resources and motivation to quit. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) at least 70% of the entire adult smoker population wants to quit smoking altogether, and at least 40% of smokers attempt to quit for approximately one day every year. This shows that adult smokers appreciate the need to stop smoking, but there appears to be insufficient incentives to encourage them to quit once and for all. Incentives based in the work environment, as well as competitions aimed at lowering tobacco use amongst workers provide rewards, to workers and teams, to motivate them to engage in cessation efforts and programs. Smoke-free policies encompass, among others, private sector rules, as well as public sector regulations, which deter smoking within indoor work environments and enclosed public spaces (Shopland, Anderson, Burns & Gerlach, 2004). Private sector smoke-free rules and policies may develop and institute complete bans on the use of tobacco within the work environment. The policies may also limit smoking to certain outdoor locations. On the other hand, community-based smoke-free rules create smoke-free standards for designated indoor work environment, as well as public places. Organizations can provide rewards either separately or in combination to ensure optimal employee participation in smoking cessation programs at the work environment or other locations. Organizations can also offer rewards to ensure success in terms of the attainment of certain behavioral changes such as abstinence after certain durations, for instance, six months. Notably, the forms of rewards used can range from deductibles, reduced premiums, lottery opportunities for prizes such as monetary gain, guaranteed financial payouts to return of payroll withholdings imposed by individual workers (CDC, 2005). Conversely, organizations may take into consideration disincentives, for instance, charging smokers greater premiums than smokers. Organizations can, alternatively, establish policies that require all workers to receive discounts on the premiums paid on their health insurance, but smokers do not receive these discounts if they fail to quit smoking within one year. Certain employers go as far as threatening to dismiss smokers who fail to complete programs within a year, although certain state laws outlaw such extremist actions. Smoking is a significant issue of public health since the use of tobacco kills at least five million people every year and is accountable for one out of 10 adult deaths. Tobacco use is the single most preventable trigger of death. According to the World Health Organization, at least 11% of deaths that occur as a consequence of ischaemic heart disease are attributable to smoking. Ischaemic heart disease is a leading killer. In addition, at least 70% of deaths, which occur as a consequence of bronchus, trachea and lung cancer, are also attributable to the use of tobacco (CDC, 2005). Smoking is a significant public health issue because if the current pattern persists, by the year 2030, tobacco use will kill at least eight million people every year. Currently, the global smoker population is one billion individuals who will die prematurely as a result of tobacco-related health problems. The financial cost of smoking is also quite devastating, especially as a result of the high cost of public health of treating smoking-related problems. Smokers are also less productive than non smokers because of increased likelihood of sickness. Conversely, those who die prematurely deny their families crucial income. Organizations need to appreciate that smokers often need numerous attempts to quit smoking before they become successful. This is largely because dependence on nicotine is a chronic and relapsing condition and employers should not consider relapse as failure. As an alternative, they should consider a relapse as an opportune time for workers attempting to quit to amend their treatment programs to ensure optimal efficiency and effectiveness. The CDC found that work-based incentives, as well as competitions, and alternative interventions enhance individual cessation and are quite effective in reducing smoking incidents among workers. Smoking affects both smokers and non smokers who inhale secondary smoke. According to the WHO, smokers encompassed approximately 12% of adults aged above 16 years and 28% of these smokers were men while women encompassed 25% of smokers (CDC, 2005). WHO noted a distinct social class gradient in smoking where the overall prevalence of 32% of manual workers and 18% of non-manual workers. Caucasians appear to be the most susceptible to tobacco smoking. Societal values such as the consideration of tobacco smoking as classy, as well as economic influences such as low cost of tobacco cigarettes, play significant roles in influencing the current rate to tobacco use (Cahill & Perera, 2008). The cigarette manufacturing industry has significant sway in the economy since large multinational companies are responsible for cigarette production (Hopkins et al. 2010). Since these companies contribute significantly to national and global economic wellbeing, national and international policymakers are relatively reluctant to take serious actions against cigarette manufacturing companies. These serious actions consist of requiring cigarette manufacturers to educate their customers regarding the detriments of cigarette smoking. Furthermore, current policies do not consider cigarettes as controlled substances despite their evident detrimental effects on public health. The proposed intervention has a number of pros and cons. Some of the most prominent advantages include cost effectiveness since the intervention does not entail massive expenditures on the part of businesses. In addition, the intervention allows for the integration of various treatment aspects in a unified system, which includes a pharmacy plan and mental health plan for medications and counseling, respectively. However, a notable disadvantage of the intervention is the lack of succinct training provisions to enable workers to make informed decisions to quit smoking. Training should be a prominent part of the intervention, and if I were to implement the intervention, I would encompass training as a fundamental principle. I would remove barriers and establish positive change by providing sufficient information to workers regarding the detriments of smoking physically, psychologically and financially. Some unintended effects of the intervention include workers quitting for the sake of monetary consideration or another form of reward rather than as a consequence of appreciating the detriments of smoking (Glantz, 1996). This implies that the workers would revert to their smoking habits if the organization withdrew the rewards. References Cahill, K., & Perera, R. (2008). Competitions and incentives for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2005). Cigarette smoking among adults United States. MMWR 54, 1121-1124. Glantz, S. A. (1996). Preventing tobacco use: The youth access trap. American Journal of Public Health, 86(2), 156-158. Hopkins, D. P., Razi, S., Leeks, K. D. et al. (2010). Smoke-free policies to reduce tobacco use: A systematic review.  American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 38(2S), 275-289. Shopland, D. R., Anderson, C. M., Burns, D. M., & Gerlach, K. K. (2004). Disparities in smoke-free workplace policies among food service workers. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 46(4), 347-356. Read More