title: Smoking policies in small worksites in Minnesota.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine correlates of smoking policies in a stratified sample of small worksites in Minnesota and to determine knowledge and attitudes of the owners and managers regarding the Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act (MCIAA) rules that newly applied to their businesses.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional survey.
  
  
  METHODS
  Minnesota offices and factories/warehouses with 5 to 50 employees. Subjects. Owners or managers of offices and factories/warehouses; sample size = 233; response rate = 66%.
  
  
  METHODS
  Existence and strength of worksite smoking policies.
  
  
  METHODS
  Comparison of factories/warehouses and offices in metropolitan and greater Minnesota using chi square and linear and logistic regression analyses.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Approximately two-thirds of the worksites claimed to have a smoking policy, but only 26% of the total sample had a policy in writing. Worksites that offered health insurance to their employees were more likely to have a written policy (p < .0001), as were offices in the metro area compared with other worksites (p = .003). Policies of both types of outstate worksites were stronger compared with those at metro sites, and offices had stronger policies than factories and warehouses in the metro area. Only about one-third of the businesses had heard of the MCIAA rule changes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Most small businesses in Minnesota do not have a smoking policy in writing and thus their employees are at risk of exposure to secondhand smoke at work.
authors.affiliation: Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 S. Second Street, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55454-1015, USA.
authors.forename: Kate
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Uslan
authors.forename: Jean L
authors.initials: JL
authors.lastname: Forster
authors.forename: Vincent
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Chen
mesh_terms: D016902:Air Pollution, Indoor / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D033161:Government Regulation; D006264:Health Benefit Plans, Employee / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019538:Health Care Surveys; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006801:Humans; D007221:Industry / Q000458:organization & administration*; D008910:Minnesota / Q000453:epidemiology; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D016273:Occupational Exposure / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000517:prevention & control*; D016134:Organizational Policy; D012423:Rural Health; D012907:Smoking / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D000074606:Smoking Prevention; D014028:Tobacco Smoke Pollution / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000517:prevention & control; D014504:Urban Health; D017132:Workplace / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000458:organization & administration
chemical_list: D014028:Tobacco Smoke Pollution