Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21497973›Full record

ArticleSocial science & medicine (1982)2011

Prevalence and predictors of smoking in "smoke-free" bars. Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Europe Surveys.

Gera E Nagelhout, Ute Mons, Shane Allwright, Romain Guignard, François Beck, Geoffrey T Fong, Hein de Vries, Marc C Willemsen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Social science & medicine (1982), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Analysis of non-compliance with smoke-free legislation in Russia.International journal of public health · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Population support before and after the implementation of smoke-free laws in the United States: trends from 1992-2007.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2015
    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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Gera E NagelhoutMaastricht University, CAPHRI, The Netherlands. gnagelhout@stivoro.nl
Ute Mons
Shane Allwright
Romain Guignard
François Beck
Geoffrey T Fong
Hein de Vries
Marc C Willemsen
Maastricht University · NLInstitut National de Prévention et d’Education pour la Santé · FRGerman Cancer Research Center · DETrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity of Waterloo · CA

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 CA090955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National level smoke-free legislation is implemented to protect the public from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke (SHS). The first aim of this study was to investigate how successful the smoke-free hospitality industry legislation in Ireland (March 2004), France (January 2008), the Netherlands (July 2008), and Germany (between August 2007 and July 2008) was in reducing smoking in bars. The second aim was to assess individual smokers' predictors of smoking in bars post-ban. The third aim was to examine country differences in predictors and the fourth aim was to examine differences between educational levels (as an indicator of socioeconomic status). This study used nationally representative samples of 3147 adult smokers from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Europe Surveys who were surveyed pre- and post-ban. The results reveal that while the partial smoke-free legislation in the Netherlands and Germany was effective in reducing smoking in bars (from 88% to 34% and from 87% to 44%, respectively), the effectiveness was much lower than the comprehensive legislation in Ireland and France which almost completely eliminated smoking in bars (from 97% to 3% and from 84% to 3% respectively). Smokers who were more supportive of the ban, were more aware of the harm of SHS, and who had negative opinions of smoking were less likely to smoke in bars post-ban. Support for the ban was a stronger predictor in Germany. SHS harm awareness was a stronger predictor among less educated smokers in the Netherlands and Germany. The results indicate the need for strong comprehensive smoke-free legislation without exceptions. This should be accompanied by educational campaigns in which the public health rationale for the legislation is clearly explained.

Indexed as

Public PolicyRestaurantsAdolescentAdultData CollectionEuropeFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMiddle AgedSmokingSocial ClassYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID21497973
PMCPMC4565519
OpenAlexW1975487254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.