ArticleTobacco control2024
Evaluation of a smoke-free beaches intervention in Barcelona: a quasi-experimental study.
Article in Tobacco control, 2024. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Method for Observing SMOKing and vaping bEhaviours (MOSMOKE): development and validation of a systematic observation tool.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Support for regulating smoking in private and public places by adults who currently smoke and recently quit smoking in Spain.Tobacco induced diseases · 2024Article
- Best practices for secondhand smoke and secondhand aerosol protection and evidence supporting the expansion of smoke- and aerosol-free environments: Recommendations from the 2nd Joint Action on Tobacco Control.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aim to assess the effect of a smoke-free beaches (SFB) intervention in Barcelona on smoking during the 2021 bathing season.
methodsQuasi-experimental pre-post design (pre-intervention period: 15-28 May; post-intervention period: 29 May-12 September). Based on users' profiles and location, four beaches were assigned to the intervention group (IG) and five to the comparison group (CG). The intervention involved: a mayoral decree (29 May), a communication campaign and beach on-site information. We established two 3 m × 3 m transects per beach from the coastline to the promenade. Trained teams collected smoking-related information in the transects through observations and surveys to beach users. Outcomes are as follows: percentage of people reporting witnessing smoking behaviours the last fortnight and percentage of people observed smoking. We calculated and compared prevalence ratios (PRs) with adjusted Poisson regressions.
results3751 interviews (1721 IG; 2030 CG) and 1108 observations (498 IG, 610 CG) were carried out. SFB were associated with a significant reduction in the percentage of people reporting witnessing smoking (IG (pre: 87.2%; post: 49.7%); CG (pre: 86.2%; post: 74.1%); PR (95% CI): 0.7 (0.6 to 0.8)); and in the users observed smoking in the beach (IG (pre: 3.8%; post: 3.0%); CG (pre: 2.3%; post: 9.9%); PR (95% CI): 0.3 (0.3 to 0.4)). Satisfaction scores were 8.3 (IG) and 8.1 (CG) out of 10.
conclusionAn SFB intervention is an effective and well-accepted measure to reduce smoking and smokers' visibility. Smoke-free measures should be extended to beaches and other non-regulated outdoor areas.
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.