MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2468529248

Legislative Smoking Bans for Reducing Secondhand Smoke Exposure, Smoking Prevalence and Tobacco Consumption

2011· article· en· W2468529248 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janice Christie

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational public health journal · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEnvironmental healthMedicinePopulationTobacco controlPsychological interventionSmoking banPublic healthNursing
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

IntroductionA Cochrane systematic review was undertaken to answer the question: does legislation to ban or restrict tobacco smoking reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and smoking behaviour?Relevance for nursingSmoking bans are environmental, population-focused approaches that aim to rReducetion in both tobacco smoking behaviours and secondhand smoke exposure. through smoking bans impact the environment and hence population health. Often bans are accompanied by education regarding the need for the ban and support services thato help smokers use the opportunity to quit or reduce their tobacco consumption. Therefore, smoking bans can be associated with the 'settings approach' to health promotion derived from the World Health Organisation's Ottawa Charter (1986). Thise Charter supports population and individual health through integrated, coordinated and multi-dimensional interventions.Study characteristicsAThis was a Cochrane systematic review was undertaken thatwhich produced a 'narrative only' synthesis of 50 studies. Studies (with reported numbers of participants) had samples ranging from of 24 to 10413 subjects. No randomised controlled trials were identified that met review inclusion criteria., Nonethelesshowever, 13 non-randomised controlled studies (quasi-experimental designs) were included; of these 7, were located in a general or workplace setting and 6six related to hospital admissions. A further 37 studies which lacked a control group but recorded data from participants pre and post intervention were also included in the review. In total, In 16 16 of reviewed studies used random sampling was used to select participants from a target population, 11 employed convenience sampling, 5five used randomly selected clusters of bars/public houses; 5five sampling methods were unclear and 2two studies utilised mixed sampling methods.No age, gender or geographic limits were placed on study samples included in the review. ReviewedIncluded studies followed participants for a minimum of six months following the ban (except for 8 studies which measured exposure to second hand smoke). Eight study authors identified that small sample size or low statistical power limited the generalisability of their research findings. No age, gender or geographic limit was placed on participants in reviewed studies. A risk of bias summary table was not included in the review; however, the reviewers note that one source of bias (blinding participants to receipt of the intervention) was not possible in any study, due to the nature of the ban interventions. Eight study authors identified that small sample size or low statistical power was a limitation to the generalisability of their research findings.The most commonly reviewed intervention was a comprehensive legislative ban on indoor smoking that was comprehensive within indoor sites (a total ban in 40 studies). An additional 10Ten ?restriction' intervention studies were also included ; these permitted which the reviewers classified as 'restrictions' as they allowed smoking within a designated area. Twenty two of the reviewed studies were conducted in workplaces, most of these (19) targeted the health of hospitality workers in bars or restaurants. The reviewed studies included bans in 13 countries, mostly the USA (17) or Scotland (8). Exposure to secondhand smoke was collectedmeasured by participants' self-report recordingof either the 'duration of exposure' or 'percentage sample exposed'. Some researchers (mostly those conducting large population studies) also took biochemical samples e.g. of saliva, to validate self-reports. Measures such as: smoking prevalence, tobacco consumption, smoking cessation, and respiratory, cardiac or sensory health outcomes were also considered by the reviewers. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,042

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,033
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0070,008
Bibliométrie0,0080,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,187
Tête enseignante GPT0,380
Écart entre enseignants0,193 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational public health journalMême sujetSmoking Behavior and CessationTravaux en français237 207