Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11891365›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2002

Application of a rating system to state clean indoor air laws (USA).

J F Chriqui, M Frosh, R C Brownson, D M Shelton, R C Sciandra, R Hobart, P H Fisher, R el Arculli, M H Alciati

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Long-term effects of laws governing youth access to tobacco.American journal of public health · 2013
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Policy-driven tobacco control.Tobacco control · 2010
    Article
  10. Tobacco control policy and adolescent cigarette smoking status in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2009
    Article
  11. Article
  12. A comprehensive review of state laws governing Internet and other delivery sales of cigarettes in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2008
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

J F ChriquiThe MayaTech Corporation, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910-3921, USA. jchriqui@mayatech.com
M Frosh
R C Brownson
D M Shelton
R C Sciandra
R Hobart
P H Fisher
R el Arculli
M H Alciati

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop and implement a system for rating state clean indoor air laws.

designThe public health interest of state clean indoor air laws is to limit non-smoker exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Current estimates of health risks and methods available for controlling ETS provided a framework for devising a ratings scale. An advisory committee applied this scale to each of seven site specific smoking restrictions and two enforcement related items. For each item, a target score of +4 was identified. The nine items were then combined to produce a summary score for each state. A state that achieved the target across all nine items would receive a summary score of 36 points and be eligible to receive an additional 6 points for exceeding the target on six of the nine items, resulting in a maximum summary score of 42 points. Individual scores were also adjusted to reflect state level preemption measures. Each state's law was evaluated annually from 1993 through 1999.

settingUSA.

main outcome measureA summary score measuring the extensiveness of the state's clean indoor air law.

resultsState laws restricting smoking in the seven individual locations of interest were relatively weak. The overall mean score across the location restrictions ranged from 0.72 in 1993 to 0.98 in 1999. Mean scores were higher for the enforcement items than for the location restrictions. Summary scores ranged from 0 to 20 in 1993 and 0 to 31 in 1994 through 1999. Average summary scores ranged from 8.71 in 1993 to 10.98 in 1999. By the end of 1999, scores increased for 22 states; however, between 1995 and 1997 there were no changes in the summary scores. Three states scored zero points across all years. From 1993 through 1999, there was a 41% increase in the number of states that had in place state level preemption measures.

conclusionThe number of newly enacted state clean indoor air laws has remained relatively stagnant since 1995. With a few exceptions, as of the end of 1999, progress in enacting state laws to meet specified public health targets for reducing exposure to ETS was relatively low. Thus, state laws in the USA provide, on average, only minimal protection in specified areas and, given the increase in preemption, are increasingly undermining those passed in localities.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesAir Pollution, IndoorBenchmarkingEvaluation Studies as TopicHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)State GovernmentTobacco Smoke PollutionUnited StatesTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID11891365
PMCPMC1747656

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.