Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8427328›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health1993

Retail stores' compliance with a city no-smoking law.

N A Rigotti, M A Stoto, M F Bierer, A Rosen, T Schelling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

N A RigottiInstitute for the Study of Smoking Behavior and Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
M A Stoto
M F Bierer
A Rosen
T Schelling

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLaws restricting smoking in public places and workplaces can protect the public only if they are obeyed. We sought to assess compliance with a Cambridge, Mass, no-smoking ordinance.

methodsWe prospectively observed 174 retail stores 1 month before and 3, 11, and 24 months after the law took effect. At 24 months, we interviewed one employee per store.

resultsFull compliance with the law was low; at 24 months, only 4% of stores displayed the mandated sign and were free of smokers and smoke. Fewer than half the stores posted any no-smoking sign. Sign prevalence increased over 2 years (22% to 41%, P < .001), but the frequency of smoke or smokers (13% and 10%, respectively, at baseline) did not change. According to employees interviewed at 24 months, 38% of stores illegally permitted customers or employees to smoke. These stores had more smoke and fewer signs than did stores prohibiting smoking. Compliance was poor in liquor and convenience stores. Employees who had been told how to handle customers' smoking were more likely to enforce the law.

conclusionsCompliance with a no-smoking law is not guaranteed. For retail stores, compliance may improve if stores adopt no-smoking policies, post signs, and teach employees to enforce the law.

Indexed as

CommerceMassachusettsOrganizational PolicyProspective StudiesSmoking

Identifiers

PMID8427328
PMCPMC1694565

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.