Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10691757›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2000

Effect of an eight week smoking ban on women at US navy recruit training command.

S I Woodruff, T L Conway, C C Edwards

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S I WoodruffGraduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA. swoodruf@mail.sdsu.edu
T L Conway
C C Edwards
Blue Sky Research (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine the effect of a unique organisational smoking ban on female United States Navy recruits, a population with historically high smoking rates. SETTING AND

designStudy participants were female recruits (n = 5503) entering the Navy recruit training command between March 1996 and March 1997 (12 consecutive months). Participants completed smoking surveys at entry to recruit training (baseline) and again at graduation from training after exposure to an eight week, 24 hour a day smoking ban. Effects of the ban on baseline to graduation changes in perceptions of being a smoker were examined, and relapse rates among baseline ever smokers was assessed three months after leaving recruit training.

resultsAmong all recruits, 41.4% reported being smokers at entry (that is, reported any smoking in the 30 days before entering recruit training). As a result of the ban, there was a significant reduction (from about 41% to 25%, p < 0.001) in the percentage of all women recruits who reported themselves as smokers, a much larger change than expected had no ban been in place. Relapse at the three month follow up varied according to the type of smoker at entry into the Navy, with rates ranging from 89% relapse among baseline daily smokers to 31% among baseline experimenters.

conclusionsFindings suggest that the ban provides some smokers who desire to quit with an external impetus and support to do so. However, high relapse rates indicate that more than an organisationally mandated smoking ban during recruit training is needed to help younger smokers, more regular smokers, and those who intend to continue smoking to quit after joining the Navy.

Indexed as

EducationNicotianaPlants, ToxicSmoking PreventionAdultFemaleHumansMilitary Personnel

Identifiers

PMID10691757
PMCPMC1748300
OpenAlexW1966912093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.