Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27230617›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2016

A cross sectional evaluation of a total smoking ban at a large Australian university.

Sharyn Burns, Ellen Hart, Jonine Jancey, Jonathan Hallett, Gemma Crawford, Linda Portsmouth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Breathe Easy Gippsland-Community Attitudes Towards Expanding Smoke- and Vape-Free Zones in Gippsland, Victoria, Australia.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Sharyn BurnsCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia. s.burns@curtin.edu.au.
Ellen HartCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia.
Jonine JanceyCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia.
Jonathan HallettCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia.
Gemma CrawfordCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia.
Linda PortsmouthCollaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health, School of Public Health, Curtin University, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTotal smoking bans have been found to contribute positively to the health of non-smokers by reducing exposure to second-hand smoke, and to enhance the likelihood of cessation among smokers.

methodsTwo cross-sectional electronic surveys of staff and students at a large Australian university were conducted prior (n = 969) and 1 year post (n = 670) the implementation of a smoke free campus policy. Demographics, tobacco use, intention to quit, attitudes towards smoking and smoking restrictions and awareness of and attitudes towards the campus smoking policy were measured.

resultsExposure to second-hand smoke (SHS) reduced significantly (p < 0.001) one year after policy implementation. Smoking prevalence was similar at both time periods (T1 9.3 %; T2 8.4 %) and over half of smokers indicated they were planning to quit smoking in the future (T1 65.5 vs T2 62.3 %). There was a significant increase in positive responses to the statement the campus should be totally smoke free including all outdoor areas at T2 compared to T1 (T1 60.8 vs T2 71.4 %; p < 0.001), however respondents felt there should be places on campus for smokers to smoke (T1 53.6 vs T2 47 %; p < 0.05).

conclusionsThis study found a significant positive difference in exposure SHS after implementation of the total ban. Although prevalence of smoking in this study was low, the proportion of respondents who were contemplating smoking cessation suggests support for smokers would be beneficial. Continued awareness raising, education and enforcement is likely to enhance the long term outcomes of the total ban.

Indexed as

Smoke-Free PolicyAdultAttitude to HealthAustraliaAwarenessCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID27230617
PMCPMC4882868

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.