ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2020
Does support for smoke-free outdoor spaces increase after implementation?: A case study of a Dutch research center's smoke-free campus transition.
Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Secondhand smoke exposure in public outdoor spaces in the Netherlands: The stronger the smell, the more exposure to nicotine.Tobacco induced diseases · 2024Article
- Support for regulating smoking in private and public places by adults who currently smoke and recently quit smoking in Spain.Tobacco induced diseases · 2024Article
- Passive exposure and perceptions of smoke-free policies in hospital and university campuses among nursing students: A cross-sectional multicenter study.Tobacco induced diseases · 2023Article
- Outdoor smoking as a nuisance to non-smokers: The case for smoke-free outdoor public spaces in dense urban areas.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPolicymakers may sometimes be reluctant to develop policies for smoke-free outdoor spaces due to concerns about public reaction. In this study, we investigated the support for a smoke-free campus before and after the campus of a Dutch research institute became smoke-free.
methodsWe conducted two surveys among employees to measure the level of support for a smoke-free campus. The first survey (n=129) was conducted 3 months before and the second 13 months after the implementation of a smoke-free campus policy (n=134).
resultsMore employees supported the smoke-free campus after (82.1%) than before (64.3%) implementation (OR=2.55; 95% CI: 1.39-4.70; p=0.003). In addition, more employees (75.4%) employees believed it is important to have a smoke-free campus than was the situation before (56.6%) the implementation (OR=2.28; 95% CI: 1.31-3.97; p=0.004).
conclusionsThis case study adds to the knowledge that support for a smoke-free campus increases after implementation of a smoke-free policy. This may encourage other organizations or local governments to create policies for smoke-free outdoor spaces.
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.