Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26842828›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2016

Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

Kate Frazer, Joanne E Callinan, Jack McHugh, Susan van Baarsel, Anna Clarke, Kirsten Doherty, Cecily Kelleher

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 203 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
203citing papers in PubMed, 17 pooled it
37.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

203 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 657 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Signs, Fines and Compliance Officers: A Systematic Review of Strategies for Enforcing Smoke-Free Policy.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Tobacco cessation interventions for young people.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

143 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kate FrazerSchool of Nursing, Midwifery & Health Systems, University College Dublin, Health Sciences Centre, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
Joanne E Callinan
Jack McHugh
Susan van Baarsel
Anna Clarke
Kirsten Doherty
Cecily Kelleher
University College Dublin · IESt. Vincent's University Hospital · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and the smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. Since the first version of this review in 2010, more countries have introduced national smoking legislation banning indoor smoking.

objectivesTo assess the effects of legislative smoking bans on (1) morbidity and mortality from exposure to secondhand smoke, and (2) smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and reference lists of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; February 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans affecting populations. The minimum standard was having an indoor smoking ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. Our search included a broad range of research designs including: randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author extracted characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies and a second author checked the details. We extracted health and smoking behaviour outcomes. We did not attempt a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in design and content of the studies included. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN

resultsThere are 77 studies included in this updated review. We retained 12 studies from the original review and identified 65 new studies. Evidence from 21 countries is provided in this update, an increase of eight countries from the original review. The nature of the intervention precludes randomized controlled trials. Thirty-six studies used an interrupted time series study design, 23 studies use a controlled before-and-after design and 18 studies are before-and-after studies with no control group; six of these studies use a cohort design. Seventy-two studies reported health outcomes, including cardiovascular (44), respiratory (21), and perinatal outcomes (7). Eleven studies reported national mortality rates for smoking-related diseases. A number of the studies report multiple health outcomes. There is consistent evidence of a positive impact of national smoking bans on improving cardiovascular health outcomes, and reducing mortality for associated smoking-related illnesses. Effects on respiratory and perinatal health were less consistent. We found 24 studies evaluating the impact of national smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviour. Evidence of an impact of legislative bans on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption is inconsistent, with some studies not detecting additional long-term change in existing trends in prevalence. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSince the first version of this review was published, the current evidence provides more robust support for the previous conclusions that the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes through reduction in SHS for countries and their populations. The clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is evidence of reduced mortality from smoking-related illnesses at a national level. There is inconsistent evidence of an impact on respiratory and perinatal health outcomes, and on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

Indexed as

Smoking PreventionAcute Coronary SyndromeAsthmaCohort StudiesControlled Before-After StudiesHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMyocardial InfarctionPrevalencePulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveSmokingTobacco Smoke PollutionTobacco Use DisorderTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID26842828
PMCPMC6486282
OpenAlexW1551535032

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.