09, 95% CI = 0.01�C0.79); policy implementation was unrelated to participant smoking status, selleck quantity of units owned/managed, HUD status, or building construction type and size. Among respondents who reported having no smoking restrictions in their buildings, those who manage and/or own units subsidized through HUD were significantly more likely to report an interest in implementing a smoke-free policy (OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 1.14�C8.52); policy interest was unrelated to participant smoking status, quantity of units owned/managed, or buildings age, construction type, and size (Table 1). Table 1.

Predictors of smoke-free policy interest among owners and managers of multiunit housing in which smoking is currently permitted, binary logistic regression, n = 110 Barriers and motivators of smoke-free policy implementation Among owners and managers with no smoking restrictions in their buildings, primary reported barriers to smoke-free policy implementation included concerns over higher vacancy rates, a decrease in the market size of potential tenants, and the federal, state, or local legality of such a policy. A total of 8% of respondents with no smoking restrictions indicated that they had no concerns about implementing a smoke-free policy in their buildings. The most commonly reported motivators for policy implementation among owners and managers with no smoking restrictions in their buildings were evidence of high tenant demand for smoke-free units and knowledge that the policy would reduce either insurance or tenant turnover rates (Table 2). Table 2.

Perceived barriers and motivators of smoke-free policy implementation among owners and managers of multiunit housing in which smoking is currently permitted All the 17 respondents with smoking restrictions in at least one of their buildings indicated that it was ��likely�� they would retain their smoke-free policy. Discussion The findings of this study suggest that only a limited number of managers and owners of MUH in Erie and Niagara counties have implemented smoke-free policies in their buildings, but most would be interested in doing so. Consequently, opportunities exist for interventional efforts to enhance smoke-free policy implementation and enforcement among these individuals. In order to ensure maximum efficacy, such interventions may be directed toward particular subgroups, such as operators of buildings with government-subsidized housing units.

In the present study, respondents who manage and/or own units subsidized through the HUD were significantly more likely to report an interest in implementing a smoke-free policy. This finding could be Entinostat attributed to the disproportionately higher rates of smoking (Giovino et al., 2009) and MUH residency (USCB, 2008) among individuals of lower socioeconomic status.