Kebijakan kawasan tanpa rokok dan status merokok pada laki-laki di Indonesia: analisis lanjut survei indikator kesehatan Indonesia (Sirkesnas) 2016

https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.46469

Nur Aeni Amaliah(1*)

(1) Departemen Kebijakan dan Manajemen Kesehatan, Fakultas Kedokteran, Kesehatan Masyarakat dan Keperawatan, Universitas Gadjah Mada
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract


Smoke-free area policy and smoking status in men in Indonesia: further analysis of the 2016 Indonesia health indicators survey (Sirkesnas)

Purpose: This study was conducted to analyze the Smoke-Free Area (SFA) policy, whether there is a relationship between smoking room restrictions and the smoking status of men in Indonesia.

Method: A cross-sectional study design using 2016 National Health Indicator Survey (Sirkesnas) was used to assess the relationship between SFA policy, marital status, age, education level, type of work and residence (rural/urban) and smoking status of male population in Indonesia is ≥10 years old. The analysis uses quadratic analysis to assess the relationship between smoking status and non-smoking area policy, and logistic regression analysis to find out the variables that together influence the smoking status of men in Indonesia. This study did not analyze the implementation of policies in the district/city.

Results: There is a relationship between SFA policy (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.06-1.16), marital status (OR: 5.21; 95% CI: 4.95-5.49), age (OR: 11.80; 95% CI 11.02-12.63), education level (OR: 1.96; 95% CI: 1.79-2.15), type of work (OR: 8.94; 95% CI: 8.39-9.53), and residence (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.20) with smoking status in men in Indonesia. The variables which mostly influence men's smoking status in Indonesia were SFA policy, marital status, age, education level, and type of work.

Conclusion: SFA policies in districts/cities in Indonesia were related to smoking status in men in Indonesia. All regencies/cities must have an SFA policy and implement it, as a comprehensive tobacco control effort in Indonesia. The implementation of SFA policies in districts/cities needs to be increased so that the effects of suppressing smoking prevalence can be seen.


Keywords


non-smoking area policy; smoking status in Indonesia

Full Text:

PDF


References

  1. Ahsan A. Bunga Rampai Fakta Tembakau dan Permasalahannya di Indonesia Tahun 2012. 2012.
  2. IHME. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (Indonesia). In: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (Indonesia) [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2018]. Available: http://www.healthdata.org/indonesia
  3. Rahajeng E. Pengaruh penerapan kawasan tanpa rokok terhadap penurunan proporsi perokok di Provinsi DKI Jakarta, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta dan Bali. Jurnal Ekologi Kesehatan. 2016. doi:10.22435/jek.v14i3.4694.238-249
  4. Najmah, Najmah N, Etrawati F, Yeni Y, Utama F. Studi Intervensi Klaster Kawasan Tanpa Rokok pada Tingkat Rumah Tangga. Kesmas: National Public Health Journal. 2015. p. 375. doi:10.21109/kesmas.v9i4.752
  5. Kemenkes RI, Kemendagri. Peraturan Bersama Menteri Kesehatan dan Menteri Dalam Negeri Nomor 188/Menkes/PB/I/2011 dan Nomor 7 Tahun 2011 tentang Pedoman Pengembangan Kawasan Tanpa Rokok. 2011.
  6. Kemenkes. Riskesdas dalam Angka Nasional Tahun 2013. 2013.
  7. Maulana HDJ. Promosi Kesehatan. Penerbit Buku Kedokteran EGC. 2007.
  8. Tchicaya A, Lorentz N, Demarest S. Socioeconomic Inequalities in Smoking and Smoking Cessation Due to a Smoking Ban: General Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study in Luxembourg. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0153966.
  9. Hahn EJ, Rayens MK, Butler KM, Zhang M, Durbin E, Steinke D. Smoke-free laws and adult smoking prevalence. Preventive Medicine. 2008. pp. 206–209. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.04.009
  10. Fong GT, Hyland A, Borland R, Hammond D, Hastings G, McNeill A, et al. Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution and increases in support for smoke-free public places following the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITC Ireland/UK Survey. Tob Control. 2006;15 Suppl 3: iii51–8.
  11. John RM, Ross H, Blecher E. Tobacco expenditure and its implications for household resource allocation in Cambodia. Tobacco Control. 2012. pp. 341–346. doi:10.1136/tc.2010.042598
  12. Doogan NJ, Roberts ME, Wewers ME, Stanton CA, Keith DR, Gaalema DE, et al. A growing geographic disparity: Rural and urban cigarette smoking trends in the United States. Preventive Medicine. 2017. pp. 79–85. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.03.011
  13. Edwards R, Thomson G, Wilson N, Waa A, Bullen C, O’Dea D, et al. After the smoke has cleared: evaluation of the impact of a new national smoke-free law in New Zealand. Tobacco Control. 2008. pp. e2–e2. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.020347
  14. Nursihan AV. Analisis Partisipasi Masyarakat dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Daerah (Peraturan Daerah Kota Yogyakarta No.2 Tahun 2017 tentang Kawasan Tanpa Rokok). Universitas Gadjah Mada. : 2018.
  15. Scragg R, Laugesen M, Robinson E. Parental smoking and related behaviours influence adolescent tobacco smoking: results from the 2001 New Zealand national survey of 4th form students. N Z Med J. 2003;116: U707.
  16. DiFranza JR, Savageau JA, Fletcher K, O’Loughlin J, Pbert L, Ockene JK, et al. Symptoms of tobacco dependence after brief intermittent use: the Development and Assessment of Nicotine Dependence in Youth-2 study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161: 704–710.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.46469

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 845 | views : 606

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2019 Berita Kedokteran Masyarakat

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Berita Kedokteran Masyarakat ISSN 0215-1936 (PRINT), ISSN: 2614-8412 (ONLINE).

Indexed by:

 

Web Analytics Visitor Counter