Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17692118›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2007

Covert observation in practice: lessons from the evaluation of the prohibition of smoking in public places in Scotland.

Mark Petticrew, Sean Semple, Shona Hilton, Kaen S Creely, Douglas Eadie, Deborah Ritchie, Catherine Ferrell, Yvette Christopher, Fintan Hurley

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Mark PetticrewMRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK. mark@msoc.mrc.gla.ac.uk
Sean Semple
Shona Hilton
Kaen S Creely
Douglas Eadie
Deborah Ritchie
Catherine Ferrell
Yvette Christopher
Fintan Hurley

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU1Medical Research Council MC_U130059812Medical Research Council MC_U130085862
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA ban on smoking in wholly or substantially enclosed public places has been in place in Scotland since 26th March 2006. The impact of this legislation is currently being evaluated in seven studies, three of which involve direct observation of smoking in bars and other enclosed public places. While the ethical issues around covert observation have been widely discussed there is little practical guidance on the conduct of such research. A workshop was therefore convened to identify practical lessons learned so far from the Scottish evaluation.

methodsWe convened a workshop involving researchers from the three studies which used direct observation. In addition, one of the fieldwork managers collected written feedback on the fieldwork, identifying problems that arose in the field and some solutions.

resultsThere were four main themes identified: (i) the difficulty of achieving and maintaining concealment; (ii) the experience of being an observer; (iii) the risk of bias in the observations and (iv) issues around training and recruitment. These are discussed.

conclusionCollecting covert observational data poses unique practical challenges, in particular in relation to the health and safety of the researcher. The findings and solutions presented in this paper will be of value to researchers designing similar studies.

Indexed as

Program EvaluationAir Pollution, IndoorBiasFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleObservationPublic FacilitiesPublic HealthResearch PersonnelScotlandSmokingSmoking Prevention

Identifiers

PMID17692118
PMCPMC2034551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.