ArticleNordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT2019
In favour of tobacco control? Former smokers' support for tobacco policies.
Article in Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retailer's Density and Single Stick Cigarette's Accessibility among School-Age Children in Indonesia.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Sales of cigarettes to pseudo-underage mystery shoppers: Experiences from Stockholm County.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2021Article
- Can gambling-funded research be non-biased? The case of section 52.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTobacco control (TC) in Sweden is being continuously strengthened.
aimsThe study aimed to examine attitudes towards different TC policies among former smokers, the difference between nicotine-free former smokers and those who use nicotine in the form of snus or nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), and whether different TC strategies tend to become more acceptable over time.
methodsRespondents are part of a seven-year follow-up of former smokers in Sweden. Initially, 1400 respondents were contacted regarding participation and 705 answered a survey (response rate 50%). The present study used cross-sectional data on attitudes towards different TC policies and respondent's level of support were measured on a 4-point scale. Analyses consist of percentage distribution of level of agreement, in total and between nicotine-free individuals and users of nicotine in the form of snus or NRTs, as well as logistic regressions in order to predict the odds for supporting the different policies. In addition, a percentage distribution of support for different policies introduced during different time-periods is shown.
resultsThere is an overall support for smoke-free environments. Nicotine users are, however, overall slightly more opposed, especially to policies aiming at denormalising smoking. Public support is important for successful implementation but resistance can pass, and interventions tend to become more acceptable over time.
conclusionWhile smoke-free indoor environments can be justified by scientific evidence of harm to others, bans against smoking outdoors might be experienced as intrusive. Policies need to rest on scientific arguments and be seen as appropriate actions, underlining the importance of information for successful implementations.
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.