ArticleBMC public health2017
Inequities in coverage of smokefree space policies within the United States.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Geographical distribution and social determinants of Tobacco 21 policy adoption and retail inspections in the United States, 2015-2019.Tobacco induced diseases · 2021Article
- Article
- Retraction Note: Inequities in coverage of smokefree space policies within the United States.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Inequities in coverage of smokefree outdoor space policies within the United States: school grounds and playgrounds.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Impact of E-Cigarette Minimum Legal Sale Age Laws on Current Cigarette Smoking.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2018Article
- Disparities in cigarette tax exposure by race, ethnicity, poverty status and sexual orientation, 2006-2014, USA.Preventive medicine · 2018Article
- Impact of an Outdoor Smoking Ban at Secondary Schools on Cigarettes, E-Cigarettes and Water Pipe Use among Adolescents: An 18-Month Follow-Up.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2018-06-26Error in Data · Error in Results and/or Conclusions · Retract and Replace · · see also https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-018-5602-7
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have found extensive geographic and demographic differences in tobacco use. These differences have been found to be reduced by effective public policies, including banning smoking in public spaces. Smokefree indoor and outdoor spaces reduce secondhand smoke exposure and denormalize smoking.
methodsWe evaluated regional and demographic differences in the proportion of the population covered by smokefree policies enacted in the United States prior to 2014, for both adults and children.
resultsSignificant differences in coverage were found by ethnicity, region, income, and education (p < 0.001). Smokefree policy coverage was lower for jurisdictions with higher proportions of poor households, households with no high school diploma and the Southeast region. Increased ethnic heterogeneity was found to be a significant predictor of coverage in indoor "public spaces generally", meaning that diversity is protective, with differential effect by region (p = 0.004) - which may relate to urbanicity. Children had a low level of protection in playgrounds and schools (~10% covered nationwide) - these spaces were found to be covered at lower rates than indoor spaces.
conclusionsDisparities in smokefree space policies have potential to exacerbate existing health inequities. A national increase in smokefree policies to protect children in playgrounds and schools is a crucial intervention to reduce such inequities.
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.