Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9431301›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health1997

Behavior intentions of the public after bans on smoking in restaurants and bars.

L Biener, M Siegel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The natural course of nicotine dependence symptoms among adolescent smokers.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2012
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The first decade of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)
    Review
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

2 authors.

L BienerCenter for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts, Boston 02125, USA.
M Siegel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study assessed the potential effect of smoke-free policies on bar and restaurant patronage.

methodsRandom-digit dialing techniques were used in surveying a representative sample of Massachusetts adults (n = 2356) by telephone.

resultsApproximately 61% of the respondents predicted no change in their use of restaurants in response to smoke-free policies, 30% predicted increased use, and 8% predicted decreased use. In turn, 69% of the respondents predicted no change in their patronage of bars, while 20% predicted increased use and 11% predicted decreased use.

conclusionsThese results suggest that smoke-free policies are likely to increase overall patronage of bars and restaurants.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeSmoking PreventionAdultFeeding BehaviorForecastingHealth PolicyHumansMassachusettsRestaurantsSmokingSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID9431301
PMCPMC1381254

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.