Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32027917›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine2020

A multimodal assessment of tobacco use on a university campus and support for adopting a comprehensive tobacco-free policy.

Samantha L Wong, Anna E Epperson, Jayna Rogers, Ralph J Castro, Robert K Jackler, Judith J Prochaska

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Samantha L WongStanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA.
Anna E EppersonStanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA.
Jayna RogersHealth Improvement Program, Stanford University, USA.
Ralph J CastroOffice of Alcohol Policy & Education, Stanford University, USA.
Robert K JacklerDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA.
Judith J ProchaskaStanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, USA. Electronic address: jpro@stanford.edu.

Funding

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PREVENTION TRAINING PROGRAMT32HL007034 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI GARDNER, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2020
$8.7M
Retail Environment for Tobacco and Marijuana in California: Impact on College Student UseR01CA217165 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI HENRIKSEN, LISA ANNE · 2018 to 2023
$2.7M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA217165NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007034
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many college campuses now prohibit tobacco use. At a private U.S. university, the current study assessed cigarette and e-cigarette use and characterized the climate for adopting a comprehensive tobacco-free policy. Data were gathered January-August 2018 via an: environmental scan; cigarette-urn audit; and representative surveys with campus community members. Despite low prevalence of tobacco (0.5%-8%) and e-cigarette use (0.9%-6%) among all groups, campus cigarette clean-up costs exceeded $114,000 for an estimated >1 million butts left on campus annually. A majority of respondents (63% of N = 2218) favored a campus-wide tobacco-free policy, 16% opposed, and 21% abstained. Most respondents endorsed benefits of supporting health (93%), ensuring tobacco-free air to breathe (92%), reducing litter (88%), preventing tobacco use (84%) and fires (83%), and helping tobacco users quit (65%). Identified challenges included policy enforcement (69%) and stigmatization of smoking (57%); 30% viewed a policy as compromising personal freedoms. In a model explaining 35% of variance in policy support, those more likely to favor comprehensive tobacco-free campus policy were Asian respondents; diagnosed with asthma; exposed to secondhand smoke on campus; who viewed campus cigarette butt litter as problematic; and identified health, prevention, and cessation benefits of a tobacco-free campus. Those less likely in favor were students, those who smoke, and those perceiving impingement upon personal freedoms, stigmatization, and broader (slippery slope) implications. Findings indicate low tobacco use prevalence among the campus community, yet a large volume of butt litter and high tobacco clean-up costs. Predictors of policy support can inform campus outreach efforts.

Indexed as

PerceptionsPolicyTobaccoUniversity

Identifiers

PMID32027917
PMCPMC7396290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.