Among participants with no smoke-free policy in the present study, those with HUD-subsidized units were significantly more likely than those selleck chem without HUD units to receive complaints from tenants about the smell of tobacco smoke in their apartments ��all the time�� or ��sometimes�� (28.3% vs. 12.0%, ��2, p = .036). Interventional efforts for enhanced smoke-free policy adoption should also capitalize upon key motivators, including interest among tenants. Population-based surveys of MUH residents previously conducted by Hennrikus et al. (2003) and Hewett et al. (2007) have shown high demand for smoke-free buildings, with 64% and 72% of respondents reporting that they were either strongly or somewhat interested in living in a smoke-free building, respectively.

Therefore, advocacy efforts should focus on promoting smoke-free building policies among MUH tenants and urging these individuals to request that such policies are implemented in their buildings. Several barriers to smoke-free policy adoption were also identified, including concerns over higher vacancy rates, a decreased market segment, and the legality of restricting smoking inside personal living areas. These findings suggest that lack of knowledge is a primary barrier to smoke-free policy implementation. This supposition is substantiated through the work of Hewett et al. (2007), who found that decision makers who had designated smoke-free buildings reported almost entirely neutral or positive effects on vacancy rates and rental market size.

Moreover, there are no federal or state laws that prohibit owners and managers of MUH facilities from restricting smoking inside their buildings and the act of smoking is not a protected activity under the U.S. Constitution (Schoenmarklin, 2005). The legal permissibility of such policies includes units subsidized through HUD, which contain high proportions of older occupants and families with children (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [USDHUD], 2009b). In a recently issued memorandum, HUD confirmed that elderly and young populations are particularly vulnerable to the adverse health effects of smoking and stated that Public Housing Authorities are permitted and encouraged to implement nonsmoking policies in their buildings (USDHUD, 2009a). Therefore, interventions to dispel the above misperceptions and to confirm the legality of smoking restrictions in MUH may enhance the diffusion of such policies.

A limitation of this study is that it included subjects from only two counties within New York State, which may restrict generalizability of Carfilzomib the findings to other localities. However, participants were recruited using a nationally recognized code employed by federal, state, and local governments to monitor multiunit residential building activities and all the individuals classified under this code within the sample frame were invited to participate.