SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Post-policy evaluation lags of tobacco and nicotine product policies: a systematic review from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review examines the time interval between policy implementation and evaluation of behavioral results in tobacco control studies (evaluation lag) as well as reported estimates. Results can help policymakers avoid premature conclusions and make more informed decisions about policy effectiveness. Methods: We reviewed studies from 2010 onward evaluating the effects of policies implemented at national-level or across majority provinces on behavioral outcomes, including tobacco use, cessation attempts, and secondhand smoke exposure, in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Eligible studies were published in the English language. The search databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and government websites. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data. A third reviewer resolved conflicts. Study quality was assessed via the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist. Results: A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated policies across various time points ranging from 6 months to 1 year ( Conclusion: Policy evaluation lags vary by policy type with smoke-free policies more frequently evaluated earlier than other tobacco and nicotine control policies. These findings highlight the importance of identifying optimal evaluation periods according to policy type. Clinical trial registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251175482, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420251175482).
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.