Trial reportAmerican journal of public health1992
Workplace compliance with a no-smoking law: a randomized community intervention trial.
Trial report in American journal of public health, 1992. 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Signs, Fines and Compliance Officers: A Systematic Review of Strategies for Enforcing Smoke-Free Policy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Pooled it
- Effect of clean indoor air laws on smokers: the clean air module of the SimSmoke computer simulation model.Tobacco control · 2001Article
- The impact of workplace smoking ordinances in California on smoking cessation.American journal of public health · 2000Article
- Employee and public responses to simulated violations of no-smoking regulations in Spain.American journal of public health · 1997Article
- Retail stores' compliance with a city no-smoking law.American journal of public health · 1993Article
- The carrot and the stick? Strategies to improve compliance with college campus tobacco policies.Journal of American college health : J of ACHArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCompliance with state and local laws restricting smoking in public places and workplaces has not been systematically evaluated.
methodsWe assessed workplace compliance with a comprehensive no-smoking law adopted in Brookline, Mass, and tested whether mailing information to businesses increased awareness of and compliance with the law. We conducted a random sample telephone survey of 299 businesses (87% response rate). Self-reported compliance was validated by direct observations.
resultsOne year after its adoption, the law was popular with businesses. The prevalence of smoking restrictions, smoking policies, and no-smoking signs was 80%, 59%, and 40%, respectively. One third of businesses banned smoking. Full compliance with the law was low, however, because few businesses posted a copy of their smoking policy as required. The mailing increased employers' awareness of the law. Employers sent the mailing also reported better compliance, but this was not confirmed by direct observations.
conclusionsThe law was popular and contributed to a high prevalence of workplace smoking restrictions. Different interpretations of the law by policymakers and businesses seemed to explain why formal compliance was low. The mailing increased awareness of, but not compliance with, the law.
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.