ArticleTobacco control2015
Banning cigarette smoking on US Navy submarines: a case study.
Article in Tobacco control, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Nobody Views It As a Negative Thing to Smoke": A Qualitative Study of the Relationship Between United States Air Force Culture and Tobacco Use.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2021Article
- 30+ years of media analysis of relevance to chronic disease: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Pro-tobacco marketing and anti-tobacco campaigns aimed at vulnerable populations: A review of the literature.Tobacco induced diseases · 2019Review
- Veterans' views on military tobacco use and tobacco control policy.Military behavioral health · 2018Article
- Perspectives of US military commanders on tobacco use and tobacco control policy.Tobacco control · 2017Article
- "Throwing a rock at their armored tank": civilian authority and military tobacco control.BMC public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe military has had a long pro-tobacco tradition. Despite official policy discouraging smoking, tobacco still is widely seen as part of military culture. While active smoking has presented a particular challenge for the military, in recent years there also has been increasing concern with secondhand smoke. This is especially true in closed environments and submarines may be deployed for months at a time. The current case study describes the successful implementation by the Navy of a comprehensive ban on smoking aboard submarines.
methodsThe authors searched documents on the internet, popular media, military-based news outlets and the scientific literature. We also conducted interviews with Navy officers who were instrumental in policy implementation.
findingsData demonstrating substantial exposure of non-smokers to tobacco smoke aboard submarines had major impact on successful adoption of the policy. A systematic and extended roll out of the ban included establishing a working group, soliciting input and active engagement from submarine personnel, and offering cessation assistance. Support was enlisted from Chief Petty Officers who could have been strongly opposed but who became strong proponents. Fewer problems were encountered than had been expected. In contrast to a previous unsuccessful attempt by a Navy captain to ban smoking on his ship, the ban was adopted without apparent tobacco industry interference.
conclusionsLessons learned included the importance of strong empirical support, effective framing of the issue, setting a realistic timeline, soliciting support from key personnel and providing appropriate resources. These lessons have implications for those considering further tobacco policy changes in the military and elsewhere.
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.