Tobacco-Free Sports and Recreation Policies

Tobacco-Free Sports and Recreation Policies
TFSR involvement up to three years prior (Case Study III) and such efforts present an element of
bias.
PHU staff at two case study sites conducted focus groups. 3 Ideally, evaluators external to the
PHU would have facilitated focus groups; however, budgetary considerations limited OTRU’s
involvement in these data collection activities.
We expect there are differences in the accuracy and completeness of recall of the survey
respondents to remember who, where, and what tobacco product use they noticed over the last
year, particularly as the spectators varied in how frequently they attended hockey events. In
addition, spectators that were not aware of the policies also completed questions about
perceived effectiveness of the policies.
Evaluation Timing
On a similar note, we acknowledge that the scheduling of tobacco-free and health events at the
arenas (e.g., TFSR) and the timing of the evaluation data collection may have impacted
knowledge and awareness levels of spectators in the survey.
Survey Question Limitations
The reporting of observations of tobacco use in the last year was confusing to interpret at times.
It was not possible to determine the extent of tobacco use at each locale because the questions
were independent from each other and multiple responses were possible.
Finally, the wording was also unclear for the survey question asking level of agreement with the
following statement: “It is okay to use smoke cigarettes at indoor sports events outside of
arenas”. We believe many survey respondents presumed this was asking about the use of
designated smoking areas outside the arena and this may be why 16% of all respondents
strongly agreed.
3 Both case study site facilitators had several years of experience in working with children and youth within the health field,
which added important insights during focus group discussions.
Ontario Tobacco Research Unit 12