8, p = .003), lower educated (��2 = 9.1, p = .011), and more likely to be a heavier selleck smoker (t = ?2.4, p = .017) than respondents who did not participate in the 2011 survey. Respondents who participated in the 2011 survey and who did not participate in the 2011 survey did not differ on support for smoke-free legislation, harm awareness, attitudes about quitting, subjective norm about quitting, and intention to quit smoking in 2008. Respondents who participated in the 2011 survey did have slightly less self-efficacy for quitting (t = 2.3, p = .023). Sample Characteristics Sample characteristics are shown in Table 1. Most respondents were daily smoker at baseline. About 23% of respondents reported at the 2008 survey to have attempted to quit smoking in the previous year.

Respondents were mostly not supportive of smoke-free legislation and not much aware of the harm of (secondhand) smoking. Most respondents intended to quit smoking sometime in the future. More than one-third of respondents reported at the 2011 survey to have attempted to quit smoking in the previous year, and almost one fifth quit smoking successfully. Table 1. Sample Characteristics in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 (n = 1,012) Correlations Table 2 shows correlations between individual exposure, policy-specific variables, psychosocial mediators, and policy-relevant outcomes. Individual exposure to smoke-free legislation was weakly correlated with support for smoke-free legislation. Support for smoke-free legislation and harm awareness had a positive correlation.

Both support and harm awareness correlated stronger with attitudes about quitting than with the subjective norm about quitting and self-efficacy. Attitudes about quitting correlated strongest with subjective norm about quitting and intention to quit. Attempting to quit correlated most with intention to quit. Quit success correlated most with self-efficacy for quitting and quit attempts. Table 2. Pearson Correlations Between Individual Exposure (2009), Policy-Specific Variables (2009), Psychosocial Mediators (2010), and Policy-Relevant Outcomes (2011) Structural Equation Model The results of the Structural Equation Model are displayed in Figure 2. The model fitted the data reasonably well (CFI = 0.899, TLI = 0.933, RMSEA = 0.037) and explained 27.7% of the variance in quit attempts and 49.6% of the variance in quit success.

All factor loadings in the final model were significant, with values between 0.51 and 0.91. Figure 2. Structural Equation Model with standardized regression coefficients assessing the pathways of change between exposure to smoke-free legislation and quit attempts and quit success. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. To simplify ... As can be seen in Figure 2, exposure to smoke-free legislation was associated with Entinostat more support for smoke-free legislation (�� = 0.32, p = .007) and more harm awareness (�� = 0.