Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34387341›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2022

Secondhand Smoke Exposure in European Countries With Different Smoke-Free Legislation: Findings From the EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys.

Sarah O Nogueira, Esteve Fernández, Pete Driezen, Marcela Fu, Olena Tigova, Yolanda Castellano, Ute Mons, Aleksandra Herbeć, Christina N Kyriakos, Tibor Demjén and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

16 authors at 11 institutions in 10 countries.

Sarah O NogueiraTobacco Control Unit and WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4780-2436
Esteve FernándezTobacco Control Unit and WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.
Pete DriezenDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2320-0999
Marcela FuTobacco Control Unit and WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4962-0927
Olena TigovaTobacco Control Unit and WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.
Yolanda CastellanoTobacco Control Unit and WHO Collaborating Center for Tobacco Control, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain.
Ute MonsCancer Prevention Unit and WHO Collaborating Centre for Tobacco Control, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Aleksandra HerbećHealth Promotion Foundation, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3339-7214
Christina N KyriakosDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0486-9152
Tibor DemjénSmoking or Health Hungarian Foundation, Budapest, Hungary.
Antigona C TroforUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy "Grigore T. Popa" Iasi, Iasi, Romania.
Krzysztof PrzewoźniakHealth Promotion Foundation, Warsaw, Poland.
Paraskevi A KatsaounouFirst ICU Evaggelismos Hospital Athens, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Constantine I VardavasEuropean Network on Smoking and Tobacco Prevention, Brussels, Belgium.
Geoffrey T FongDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,Canada.
EUREST-PLUS Consortium
Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge · ESEuropean Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention · BEUniversity of Crete · GRCollegium Civitas · PLFoundation for Polish Science · PLGerman Cancer Research Center · DEGrigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROHungarian Institute of Occupational Health · HUNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GROntario Institute for Cancer Research · CAUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

CIHR FDN-148477
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) poses serious and extensive health and economic-related consequences to European society and worldwide. Smoking bans are a key measure to reducing SHS exposure but have been implemented with varying levels of success. We assessed changes in the prevalence of self-reported SHS exposure and smoking behavior in public places among smokers in six European countries and the influence of the country's type of smoking ban (partial or total ban) on such exposure and smoking behavior. AIMS AND

methodsThe EUREST-PLUS ITC Europe Surveys were conducted among adult smokers in Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Spain in 2016 (Wave 1, n = 6011) and 2018 (Wave 2, n = 6027). We used generalized estimating equations models to assess changes between Waves 1 and 2 and to test the interaction between the type of smoking ban and (1) self-reported SHS exposure, (2) self-reported smoking in several public places.

resultsA significant decrease in self-reported SHS exposure was observed in workplaces, from 19.1% in 2016 to 14.0% in 2018 (-5.1%; 95% CI: -8.0%; -2.2%). Self-reported smoking did not change significantly inside bars (22.7% in Wave 2), restaurants (13.2% in Wave 2) and discos/nightclubs (34.0% in W2). SHS exposure in public places was significantly less likely (adjusted odds ratio = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.26-0.47) in the countries with total bans as compared to those countries with partial bans.

conclusionThe inverse association between smoking in public places and smoking bans indicates an opportunity for strengthening smoke-free legislation and protecting bystanders from exposure to SHS in public places. IMPLICATIONS: Prevalence of smokers engaging in and being exposed to smoking in public places varied by type of smoke-free legislation across six European Union countries in our study; those with total smoke bans reported significantly less exposure to SHS than those with partial or no bans. Our results indicate room for improvement, not only to decrease the prevalence of exposure to SHS in Europe but also to diminish the variability between countries through common, more restrictive smoke-free legislation, and importantly, strong and sustained enforcement.

Indexed as

Smoke-Free PolicyTobacco Smoke PollutionAdultEuropeGermanyHumansRestaurantsTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID34387341
PMCPMC8666112
OpenAlexW3192601477

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.