Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30560758›Full record

ArticlePublic health nutrition2019

Comparing and contrasting responses to tobacco control and obesity policies: a qualitative study.

Dorota Juszczyk, Fiona Gillison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Dorota JuszczykGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, IK.
Fiona GillisonDepartment for Health, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6461-7638

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore people's perceptions of, and responses to, obesity and tobacco policies with a particular focus on motivation; and to compare and contrast responses to explore the potential for translating learning across domains.

designA theoretically informed comparative qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with two groups of participants (smokers and ex-smokers; those who have previously or are currently attempting to lose weight). Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis and interpreted through the lens of Self-Determination Theory.

settingCommunity-based.

participantsInterviews were conducted with five smokers and four ex-smokers around tobacco policy, and seventeen people acting to control their weight around obesity policy.

resultsThree primary themes were identified. (i) Participants believed social norms to be crucial to supporting health behaviour change and responses to policy; not smoking was perceived as socially normal, whereas being physically active and eating healthily were perceived to go against social norms. (ii) Policies influencing the physical environment were perceived to support stopping smoking (e.g. smoke-free laws, advertising bans), but to undermine attempts to lose or control weight (e.g. high visibility, availability and low cost of energy-dense foods). (iii) While policies for both domains were considered necessary and legitimate, both groups found policy interventions neither motivating nor undermining of their sense of autonomy.

conclusionsThe results suggest those trying to lose weight respond similarly to obesity-related policy as smokers do to tobacco policy. Environmental interventions are perceived to be more helpful than appealing to people's motivation to change for their own sake.

Indexed as

MotivationObesity policyPhysical activityTobacco policy

Identifiers

PMID30560758
PMCPMC10260463

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.