ArticleAmerican journal of public health1993
Retail stores' compliance with a city no-smoking law.
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.
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.
- Effect of clean indoor air laws on smokers: the clean air module of the SimSmoke computer simulation model.Tobacco control · 2001Article
- Analysis of factors related to illegal tobacco sales to young people in Ontario.Tobacco control · 1999Article
- Employee and public responses to simulated violations of no-smoking regulations in Spain.American journal of public health · 1997Article
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
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
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.