ArticleBMC public health2007
Before and after study of bar workers' perceptions of the impact of smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland.
Article in BMC public health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.BMC public health · 2013Pooled it
- Readiness for implementation of smoke-free work hours in private companies: A qualitative study of perceptions among middle managers.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2021Article
- Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) among Employees of Hospitality Venues in the Light of Changes in Anti-Tobacco Legislation in Poland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Using the intervention ladder to examine policy influencer and general public support for potential tobacco control policies in Alberta and Quebec.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2020Article
- Assessing the social climate of physical (in)activity in Canada.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Knowledge and attitude toward smoke-free legislation and second-hand smoking exposure among workers in indoor bars, beer parlors and discotheques in Osun State of Nigeria.International journal of health policy and management · 2015Article
- Article
- Lessons from an evaluation of a provincial-level smoking control policy in Shanghai, China.PloS one · 2013Article
- Comprehensive smoke-free policies attract more support from smokers in Europe than partial policies.European journal of public health · 2012Article
- Article
- Policy support, norms, and secondhand smoke exposure before and after implementation of a comprehensive smoke-free law in Mexico city.American journal of public health · 2010Article
- Does the type of CIA policy significantly affect bar and restaurant employment in Minnesota cities?Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2009Article
- Beliefs regarding smoking in the workplace: results from the Global Workplace Smoking Survey.International journal of public health · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background
objectivesTo compare support for, and perceptions of, the impacts of smoke-free workplace legislation among bar workers in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) pre- and post-implementation, and to identify predictors of support for the legislation.
methods
settingPublic houses (pubs) in three areas of the ROI.
designComparisons pre- and post-implementation of smoke-free workplace legislation.
participantsFrom a largely non-random selection, 288 bar workers volunteered for the baseline survey; 220 were followed up one year later (76.4%). OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of support for the legislation, attitude statements concerning potential impacts of the law and modelled predictors of support for the legislation.
resultsPre-implementation 59.5% of participants supported the legislation, increasing to 76.8% post-implementation. Support increased among smokers by 27.3 percentage points from 39.4% to 66.7% (p < 0.001) and among non-smokers by 12.4% percentage points from 68.8% to 81.2% (p = 0.003).Pre-legislation three-quarters of participants agreed that the legislation would make bars more comfortable and was needed to protect workers' health. Post-legislation these proportions increased to over 90% (p < 0.001). However, negative perceptions also increased, particularly for perceptions that the legislation has a negative impact on business (from 50.9% to 62.7%, p = 0.008) and that fewer people would visit pubs (41.8% to 62.7%, p < 0.001). After adjusting for relevant covariates, including responses to the attitude statements, support for the ban increased two to three-fold post-implementation. Regardless of their views on the economic impact, most participants agreed, both pre- and post-implementation, that the legislation was needed to protect bar workers' health.
conclusionSmoke-free legislation had the support of three-quarters of a large sample of bar workers in the ROI. However, this group holds complex sets of both positive and negative perspectives on the legislation. Of particular importance is that negative economic perceptions did not diminish the widely held perception that the ban is needed to protect workers' health.
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.