Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16230313›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2005

Legislation for smoke-free workplaces and health of bar workers in Ireland: before and after study.

Shane Allwright, Gillian Paul, Birgit Greiner, Bernie J Mullally, Lisa Pursell, Alan Kelly, Brendan Bonner, Maureen D'Eath, Bill McConnell, James P McLaughlin and 3 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 69 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

69 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 235 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Consumer willingness to invest money and time for benefits of lifestyle behaviour change: an application of the contingent valuation method.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Shane AllwrightDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Dublin, Trinity College, Trinity College Centre for Health Sciences, AMNCH, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Republic of Ireland. sllwrght@tcd.ie
Gillian Paul
Birgit Greiner
Bernie J Mullally
Lisa Pursell
Alan Kelly
Brendan Bonner
Maureen D'Eath
Bill McConnell
James P McLaughlin
Diarmuid O'Donovan
Eamon O'kane
Ivan J Perry
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IETrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity College Cork · IEAltnagelvin Area Hospital · GBUniversity College Dublin · IEWestern Health and Social Care Trust · GB

Funding

Effects of Graphic Warning Labels on Adolescent SmokingR01CA090955 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO · PI FONG, GEOFFREY T · 2002 to 2004
$369k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA90955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare exposure to secondhand smoke and respiratory health in bar staff in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland before and after the introduction of legislation for smoke-free workplaces in the Republic.

designComparisons before and after the legislation in intervention and control regions.

settingPublic houses in three areas in the Republic (intervention) and one area in Northern Ireland (control).

participants329 bar staff enrolled in baseline survey; 249 (76%) followed up one year later. Of these, 158 were non-smokers both at baseline and follow-up.

main outcome measuresSalivary cotinine concentration, self reported exposure to secondhand smoke, and respiratory and sensory irritation symptoms.

resultsIn bar staff in the Republic who did not themselves smoke, salivary cotinine concentrations dropped by 80% after the smoke-free law (from median 29.0 nmol/l (95% confidence interval 18.2 to 43.2 nmol/l)) to 5.1 nmol/l (2.8 to 13.1 nmol/l) in contrast with a 20% decline in Northern Ireland over the same period (from median 25.3 nmol/l (10.4 to 59.2 nmol/l) to 20.4 nmol/l (13.2 to 33.8 nmol/l)). Changes in self reported exposure to secondhand smoke were consistent with the changes in cotinine concentrations. Reporting any respiratory symptom declined significantly in the Republic (down 16.7%, -26.1% to -7.3%) but not in Northern Ireland (0% difference, -32.7% to 32.7%). After adjustment for confounding, respiratory symptoms declined significantly more in the Republic than in Northern Ireland and the decline in cotinine concentration was twice as great.

conclusionThe smoke-free law in the Republic of Ireland protects non-smoking bar workers from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Indexed as

CotinineCross-Sectional StudiesHumansIndicators and ReagentsIrelandNorthern IrelandOccupational HealthRestaurantsSalivaSelf DisclosureSmokingSmoking PreventionTobacco Smoke PollutionWorkplaceCotinineIndicators and ReagentsTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID16230313
PMCPMC1283274
OpenAlexW2106354889

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.