Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31836632›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Monitoring progress toward United Nations commitments: characteristics of Canadian legislation to promote tobacco control, physical activity and healthy eating. A descriptive study.

Katerina Maximova, Kim D Raine, Christine Czoli, Jennifer O'Loughlin, John Minkley, Kendall Tisdale, Tania Bubela

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Katerina MaximovaSchool of Public Health (Maximova, Raine), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta; School of Epidemiology and Public Health (Czoli), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; School of Public Health (O'Loughlin), University of Montreal, Montréal, Que.; Faculty of Law (Minkley), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Tisdale), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bubela), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC katerina.maximova@ualberta.ca.
Kim D RaineSchool of Public Health (Maximova, Raine), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta; School of Epidemiology and Public Health (Czoli), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; School of Public Health (O'Loughlin), University of Montreal, Montréal, Que.; Faculty of Law (Minkley), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Tisdale), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bubela), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.
Christine CzoliSchool of Public Health (Maximova, Raine), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta; School of Epidemiology and Public Health (Czoli), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; School of Public Health (O'Loughlin), University of Montreal, Montréal, Que.; Faculty of Law (Minkley), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Tisdale), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bubela), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.
Jennifer O'LoughlinSchool of Public Health (Maximova, Raine), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta; School of Epidemiology and Public Health (Czoli), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; School of Public Health (O'Loughlin), University of Montreal, Montréal, Que.; Faculty of Law (Minkley), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Tisdale), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bubela), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.
John MinkleySchool of Public Health (Maximova, Raine), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta; School of Epidemiology and Public Health (Czoli), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; School of Public Health (O'Loughlin), University of Montreal, Montréal, Que.; Faculty of Law (Minkley), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Tisdale), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bubela), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.
Kendall TisdaleSchool of Public Health (Maximova, Raine), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta; School of Epidemiology and Public Health (Czoli), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; School of Public Health (O'Loughlin), University of Montreal, Montréal, Que.; Faculty of Law (Minkley), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Tisdale), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bubela), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.
Tania BubelaSchool of Public Health (Maximova, Raine), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta; School of Epidemiology and Public Health (Czoli), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.; School of Public Health (O'Loughlin), University of Montreal, Montréal, Que.; Faculty of Law (Minkley), University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.; Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Tisdale), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Health Sciences (Bubela), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC.
University of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLegal interventions are important mechanisms for chronic disease prevention. Since Canadian laws to promote physical activity and healthy eating are growing, we compared the characteristics of legal interventions targeting physical activity and healthy eating with tobacco control laws, which have been extensively described.

methodsWe reviewed 718 federal, provincial and territorial laws promoting tobacco control, physical activity and healthy eating captured in the Prevention Policies Directory between spring 2010 and September 2017. We characterized the legislation with regard to its purpose, tools to accomplish the purpose, responsible authorities, target location, level of coerciveness and provisions for enforcement.

resultsTwo-thirds (67.9%) of tobacco control legislation had a primary chronic disease prevention purpose (explicit in 5.3% of documents and implicit in 62.6%), and 29.5% had a secondary chronic disease prevention purpose. One-quarter (27.0%) of physical activity legislation had a primary chronic disease prevention purpose (explicit in 8.8% of documents and implicit in 18.1%), and 53.0% had a secondary chronic disease prevention purpose. In contrast, 69.3% of healthy eating legislation had no chronic disease prevention purpose. Tobacco control legislation was most coercive (restrict or eliminate choice), and physical activity and healthy eating legislation was least coercive (provide information or enable choice). Most tobacco control legislation (85.8%) included provisions for enforcement, whereas 47.4% and 24.8% of physical activity and healthy eating laws, respectively, included such provisions. Patterns in responsible authorities, target populations, settings and tools to accomplish its purpose (e.g., taxation, subsidies, advertising limits, prohibitions) also differed between legislation targeting tobacco control versus physical activity and healthy eating.

interpretationLegislative approaches to promote physical activity and healthy eating lag behind those for tobacco control. The results serve as a baseline for building consensus on the use of legislation to support approaches to chronic disease prevention to reduce the burden of chronic disease in Canadians.

Identifiers

PMID31836632
PMCPMC6910139
OpenAlexW2995191634

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.