Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8 1528 Of those who were unwilling to prohibit or restrict smoking in their own venues, 82% worried that it would reduce their revenues, 63% said that indoor air quality depended more on ventilation than smoking bans, and 62% said prohibiting or restricting smoking was not their restaurants’ or bars’ duty. Table 5. Odds Ratios for owners’ attitudes towards prohibiting or restricting smoking in restaurants and bars, five Chinese cities, 2007. Support prohibiting or restricting smoking in restaurants OR (95% CI) a Support prohibiting or restricting smoking in bars OR (95% CI) a Willing to prohibit or restrict smoking in their own venues OR (95% CI) a City Beijing (reference) (reference) (reference) Wuhan 0.3 (0.1, 0.5) *** 0.4 (0.3, 0.6) *** 0.4 (0.3, 0.7) *** 0.6 (0.4, 0.99) ** 0.4 (0.3, 0.7) *** Xi’an 0.8 (0.4, 1.5) 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) ** 0.5 (0.3, 0.7) *** Kunming 0.6 (0.3, 1.0) Guiyang 1.0 (0.5, 2.0) 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) 0.7 (0.4, 1.1) Type of Establishment Chinese dining (reference) — (reference) Chinese fast food 2.3 (0.9, 5.6) — 0.9 (0.5, 1.7) 1.9 (1.01, 3.7) * Western dining 1.7 (0.7, 4.2) — 2.6 (1.3, 5.3) ** Western fast food 2.5 (0.8, 7.5) — 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) ** Bar 1.0 (0.6, 1.6) — Age ≤35 (reference) (reference) — >35 0.7 (0.5, 1.1) 0.8 (0.6, 1.1) — Current smoking No (reference) (reference) (reference) Yes 0.6 (0.4, 0.9) ** 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) *** 0.6 (0.4, 0.8) *** Knowledge scores 0–3 (reference) (reference) (reference) 4–6 1.9 (1.3, 2.9) *** 1.9 (1.3, 2.6) *** 1.4 (1.01, 2.0) * Banning smoking would not reduce revenues Disagree/DNK b (reference) (reference) (reference) Agree 2.2 (1.5, 3.2) *** 1.6 (1.2, 2.2) *** 2.3 (1.7, 3.1) *** Notes: the three columns presenting ORs are results from separate logistic regression models which simultaneously adjust for the covariates illustrated on Table 4; variables not included in this table or labeled with “—” were excluded because their p values from Wald test were greater than 0. 20; Results presented in this table represent simple aggregation of the survey results, and no sampling weighting was used. a OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence Interval; b Disagree or don’t know; * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, ***p<0.001. 4. Discussion As a part of the same project as this study, field observations of smoking policies were conducted in 404 of the 814 venues included in this study, which were reported elsewhere [17]. Field observations showed that only 6.9% (23/333) of restaurants and no bars actually prohibited smoking voluntarily and 2.1% (7/333) of restaurants and 2.8% (2/71) of bars actually restricted smoking voluntarily [17]. This