Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37256097›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nienke W Boderie, Asiyah Sheikh, Erika Lo, Aziz Sheikh, Alex Burdorf, Frank J van Lenthe, Famke J M Mölenberg, Jasper V Been

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Towards stronger tobacco control policies to curb the smoking epidemic in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Nienke W BoderieDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Asiyah SheikhEdinburgh Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Erika LoEdinburgh Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Aziz SheikhCentre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alex BurdorfDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Frank J van LentheDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Famke J M MölenbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jasper V BeenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Smoke-free policies are essential to protect people against tobacco smoke exposure. To successfully implement smoke-free policies that go beyond enclosed public places and workplaces, public support is important. We undertook a comprehensive systematic review of levels and determinants of public support for indoor (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, six electronic databases were searched for studies (published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022) reporting support for (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies in representative samples of at least 400 respondents aged 16 years and above. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual reports using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was proportion support for smoke-free policies, grouped according to location covered. Three-level meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed. Findings: 14,749 records were screened, of which 107 were included; 42 had low risk of bias and 65 were at moderate risk. 99 studies were included in the meta-analyses, reporting 326 measures of support from 896,016 individuals across 33 different countries. Support was pooled for indoor private areas (e.g., private cars, homes: 73%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 66-79), indoor semi-private areas (e.g., multi-unit housing: 70%, 95% CI: 48-86), outdoor hospitality areas (e.g., café and restaurant terraces: 50%, 95% CI: 43-56), outdoor non-hospitality areas (e.g., school grounds, playgrounds, parks, beaches: 69%, 95% CI: 64-73), outdoor semi-private areas (e.g., shared gardens: 67%, 95% CI: 53-79) and outdoor private areas (e.g., private balconies: 41%, 95% CI: 18-69). Subcategories showed highest support for smoke-free cars with children (86%, 95% CI: 81-89), playgrounds (80%, 95% CI: 74-86) and school grounds (76%, 95% CI: 69-83). Non-smokers and ex-smokers were more in favour of smoke-free policies compared to smokers. Support generally increased over time, and following implementation of each smoke-free policy. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that public support for novel smoke-free policies is high, especially in places frequented by children. Governments should be reassured about public support for implementation of novel smoke-free policies. Funding: Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation.

Indexed as

ChildMeta-analysisPolicy makingPublic opinionSmoke-free policySurveys and questionnairesSystematic reviewTobacco smoke pollutionTobacco smoking

Identifiers

PMID37256097
PMCPMC10225670

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.