Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25143293›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2015

Population support before and after the implementation of smoke-free laws in the United States: trends from 1992-2007.

Gera E Nagelhout, Tanya Wolfson, Yue-Lin Zhuang, Anthony Gamst, Marc C Willemsen, Shu-Hong Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
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

6 authors.

Gera E NagelhoutDepartment of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Alliance Smokefree Holland, The Hague, The Netherlands;
Tanya WolfsonComputational and Applied Statistics Laboratory, SDSC, University of California, San Diego, CA;
Yue-Lin ZhuangCancer Center, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Anthony GamstComputational and Applied Statistics Laboratory, SDSC, University of California, San Diego, CA; Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, CA.
Marc C WillemsenDepartment of Health Promotion, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Alliance Smokefree Holland, The Hague, The Netherlands;
Shu-Hong ZhuCancer Center, University of California, San Diego, CA szhu@ucsd.edu.

Funding

VIRAL MALIGNANCYP30CA023100 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI Jing Yang · 1985 to 2026
$124.9M
Nonsmokers and Tobacco Control Norms: Population Surveys and Intervention StudiesU01CA154280 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI ZHU, SHU-HONG · 2011 to 2015
$7.9M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023100NCI NIH HHS U01 CA154280NCI NIH HHS U01CA154280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral states implemented comprehensive smoke-free laws in workplaces (14 states), restaurants (17 states), and bars (13 states) between 2002 and 2007. We tested the hypothesis that public support for smoke-free laws increases at a higher rate in states that implemented smoke-free laws between 2002 and 2007 (group A) than in states that implemented smoke-free laws after that time or not at all (group B). The period before the implementation (1992-2001) was also considered.

methodsData was used from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Tobacco Use Supplements (TUS), which is representative for the U.S. adult population. Respondents were asked whether they thought smoking should not be allowed in indoor work areas, restaurants, and bars and cocktail lounges. Differences in trends were analyzed with binomial mixed effects models.

resultsPopulation support for smoke-free restaurants and bars was higher among group A than among group B before 2002. After 2002, support for smoke-free restaurants and bars increased at a higher rate among group A than among group B. Population support for smoke-free workplaces did not differ between group A and B, and the increase in support for smoke-free workplaces also did not differ between these groups.

conclusionsThe positive association between the implementation of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws and the rate of increase in support for these laws partly supported the hypothesis. The implementation of the laws may have caused support to increase, but also states that have higher support may have been more likely to implement smoke-free laws.

Indexed as

Population SurveillanceAdultData CollectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRestaurantsSmoke-Free PolicySmokingTobacco Smoke PollutionTobacco UseUnited StatesWorkplaceTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID25143293
PMCPMC4375384

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.