ArticleTobacco control1999
Attitudes and experiences of restaurateurs regarding smoking bans in Adelaide, South Australia.
Article in Tobacco control, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry.Tobacco control · 2003Pooled it
- Before and after study of bar workers' perceptions of the impact of smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland.BMC public health · 2007Article
- Application of a rating system to state clean indoor air laws (USA).Tobacco control · 2002Article
- Actual and perceived impacts of tobacco regulation on restaurants and firms.Tobacco control · 2001Article
- Environmental tobacco smoke exposure among non-smoking waiters: measurement of expired carbon monoxide levels.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine compliance with a voluntary code of practice (VCP) for restricting smoking in restaurants and to canvass the attitudes of restaurateurs towards tougher smoking restrictions.
designCross-sectional survey conducted in 1996 using a telephone questionnaire.
settingMetropolitan restaurants and cafes in Adelaide, South Australia.
participants276 (86.8%) of a sample of randomly selected owners and managers.
main outcome measuresRestaurant non-smoking policies, reported and anticipated change in business, and restaurateurs' attitudes towards smoking restrictions.
results26.8% of restaurants had a total smoking ban; 40.6% restricted smoking some other way; and 32.6% permitted unrestricted smoking. Only 15.1% of restaurants with a ban or restrictions had used the VCP to guide the development of their policy, and only half of these were complying with it. Although 78.4% of those with bans and 84.4% of those with restrictions reported that their non-smoking policy had been associated with either no change or a gain in business, only 33.3% of those allowing unrestricted smoking expected that this would be the case, if they were to limit smoking. A total of 50.4% of restaurateurs, including 45.3% of those with no restrictions, agreed that the government should ban smoking in all restaurants.
conclusionsThe VCP made an insignificant contribution to adoption of non-smoking policies, and compliance with the code was poor. Despite concerns about loss of business, there was considerable support for legislation which would ban smoking in all dining establishments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.