Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25974144›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2015

Changes in Georgia restaurant and bar smoking policies from 2006 to 2012.

Rachna D Chandora, Carrie F Whitney, Scott R Weaver, Michael P Eriksen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. 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

4 authors.

Rachna D ChandoraP.O. Box 3995, Atlanta, GA 30302-3995. Email: rchandora1@student.gsu.edu.
Carrie F WhitneyGeorgia State University, School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia.
Scott R WeaverGeorgia State University, School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia.
Michael P EriksenGeorgia State University, School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this study is to examine the change in smoking policy status among Georgia restaurants and bars from 2006 to 2012 and to identify restaurant and bar characteristics that are associated with allowing smoking.

methodsData were obtained from similar cross-sectional indoor air surveys conducted in 2006 and 2012 in Georgia. Both surveys were designed to gather information about restaurant and bar smoking policies. Weighted χ(2) analyses were performed to identify changes in smoking policy status and other variables from 2006 to 2012. Weighted logistic regression analysis was used to test for significant associations between an establishment's smoking policy and other characteristics.

resultsThe percentage of restaurants and bars in Georgia that allowed smoking nearly doubled, from 9.1% in 2006 to 17.6% in 2012. The analyses also showed a significant increase in the percentage of establishments that allow smoking when minors are present. Having a liquor license was a significant predictor of allowing smoking.

conclusionThe Smokefree Air Act was enacted in 2005 to protect the health and welfare of Georgia citizens, but study results suggest that policy makers should reevaluate the law and consider strengthening it to make restaurants and bars 100% smokefree without exemptions.

Indexed as

Air Pollution, IndoorAlcohol DrinkingAttitude to HealthAwarenessCommerceCross-Sectional StudiesGeorgiaHealth PromotionHumansInterviews as TopicLicensureLogistic ModelsOccupational HealthPolicy MakingPublic OpinionPublic PolicyTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID25974144
PMCPMC4438425

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.