ArticlePublic health nursing (Boston, Mass.)2021
Compliance with North Dakota's smoke-free law among vape and tobacco specialty shops.
Article in Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review for the impacts of global approaches to regulating electronic nicotine products.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- Compliance with North Dakota's smoke-free law among vape and tobacco specialty shops.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine compliance with North Dakota's smoke-free law in vape shops and other tobacco specialty shops selling electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-liquids.
designIn this 2019 descriptive study, shops (n = 35) were assessed for compliance with the smoke-free law by observation of indoor and outdoor areas for smoking or vaping, or evidence of such activity in prohibited areas, and the presence of required no-smoking signs.
resultsOnly two shops (5.7%) were fully compliant with the smoke-free law. Full compliance for indoor and outdoor environments was 8.5% and 42.8%, respectively. Vaping occurred inside five shops (14.3%), and smoking occurred outdoors within required smoke-free areas in two (5.7%) shops. Four (11.4%) and 17 (48.6%) shops complied with indoor and outdoor signage requirements, respectively.
conclusionsOverall compliance remained low, although much of the noncompliance was related to signage. Use or evidence of ENDS use occurred both indoors and outdoors where prohibited by law. Classifying ENDS as tobacco products would require tobacco licensure of shops selling ENDS and e-liquids, aiding in identification of the shops for education and enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with the law and to improve public health protection.
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.