Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26911840›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2016

Has Childhood Smoking Reduced Following Smoke-Free Public Places Legislation? A Segmented Regression Analysis of Cross-Sectional UK School-Based Surveys.

Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Geoff Der, Chris Roberts, Sally Haw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Impact of UK Tobacco Control Policies on Inequalities in Youth Smoking Uptake: A Natural Experiment Study.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Smoke-free legislation and child health.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2016
    Review
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.

Srinivasa Vittal KatikireddiMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; Vittal.katikireddi@glasgow.ac.uk.
Geoff DerMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK;
Chris RobertsSocial Research and Information Division, Welsh Government, Cardiff, UK;
Sally HawSchool of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist OfficeMedical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSmoke-free legislation has been a great success for tobacco control but its impact on smoking uptake remains under-explored. We investigated if trends in smoking uptake amongst adolescents differed before and after the introduction of smoke-free legislation in the United Kingdom.

methodsPrevalence estimates for regular smoking were obtained from representative school-based surveys for the four countries of the United Kingdom. Post-intervention status was represented using a dummy variable and to allow for a change in trend, the number of years since implementation was included. To estimate the association between smoke-free legislation and adolescent smoking, the percentage of regular smokers was modeled using linear regression adjusted for trends over time and country. All models were stratified by age (13 and 15 years) and sex.

resultsFor 15-year-old girls, the implementation of smoke-free legislation in the United Kingdom was associated with a 4.3% reduction in the prevalence of regular smoking (P = .029). In addition, regular smoking fell by an additional 1.5% per annum post-legislation in this group (P = .005). Among 13-year-old girls, there was a reduction of 2.8% in regular smoking (P = .051), with no evidence of a change in trend post-legislation. Smaller and nonsignificant reductions in regular smoking were observed for 15- and 13-year-old boys (P = .175 and P = .113, respectively).

conclusionsSmoke-free legislation may help reduce smoking uptake amongst teenagers, with stronger evidence for an association seen in females. Further research that analyses longitudinal data across more countries is required. IMPLICATIONS: Previous research has established that smoke-free legislation has led to many improvements in population health, including reductions in heart attack, stroke, and asthma. However, the impacts of smoke-free legislation on the rates of smoking amongst children have been less investigated. Analysis of repeated cross-sectional surveys across the four countries of the United Kingdom shows smoke-free legislation may be associated with a reduction in regular smoking among school-aged children. If this association is causal, comprehensive smoke-free legislation could help prevent future generations from taking up smoking.

Indexed as

Adolescent BehaviorSmoke-Free PolicyAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceRegression AnalysisSchoolsSmokingSmoking CessationSmoking PreventionSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26911840
PMCPMC4902887

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.