ArticleTobacco control2013
Development of policy performance indicators to assess the implementation of protection from exposure to secondhand smoke in China.
Article in Tobacco control, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Strengthening health policy development and management systems in low- and middle- income countries: South Africa's approach.Health policy OPEN · 2020Article
- Development of a tobacco 21 policy assessment tool and state-level analysis in the USA, 2015-2019.Tobacco control · 2020Review
- Distributional benefits of tobacco tax and smoke-free workplaces in China: A modeling study.Journal of global health · 2017Article
- Article
- Evaluation of smoke-free policies in seven cities in China, 2007-2012.Tobacco control · 2015Article
- The global tobacco control 'endgame': change the policy environment to implement the FCTC.Journal of public health policy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo develop an approach for rapid assessment of tobacco control interventions in China. We examined the correlation between components of the Strength of Tobacco Control (SOTC) index and a proposed rapid evaluation indicator, the Policy Performance Indicator (PPI), which is based on protection of non-smokers from secondhand smoke (SHS). The PPI was used to assess the implementation of policies related to SHS at the provincial/municipal level in China.
methodsStratified random sampling was used to select five types of organisational and household respondents in two municipalities and five provinces in China (Shanghai and Tianjin, Heilongjiang, Henan, Guangdong, Zhejiang and Jiangxi, respectively). Data collection methods included key informant interviews, observation and intercept surveys (organisations), and a modified Global Adult Tobacco Survey (GATS) questionnaire (households). SOTC scores (SHS policy, capacity and efforts), PPI (no smoking in designated smoke-free places) and mid-term to long-term impact (knowledge, attitude and reduced exposure to SHS) were measured, and correlations among them were calculated.
resultsThe PPI varied across the seven locations. Shanghai led in the component indicators (at 56.5% for indoor workplaces and 49.1% for indoor public places, respectively), followed by Guangdong, Tianjin and Zhejiang (at 30-35% for these two indicators), and finally, Henan and Jiangxi (at 20-25%). Smoke-free policies were more effectively implemented at indoor workplaces than indoor public places. The PPI correlated well with certain components of the SOTC but not with the long-term indicators.
conclusionsThe PPI is useful for evaluating implementation of smoke-free policies. As tobacco control programmes are implemented, the PPI offers an indicator to track success and change strategies, without collecting data for a full SOTC index.
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.