Outdoor smoking behaviour and support for outdoor smoking restrictions before and after France's national smoking ban
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On January 1, 2008, the French government implemented a national ban on indoor smoking in hospitality venues. Survey results indicate the indoor ban has been successful at dramatically reducing indoor smoking; however, there are reports of an increased number of outdoor hospitality spaces (patios) where smoking can take place. This study sought to understand if the indoor ban simply moved smoking to the outdoors, and to assess levels of support for smoking restrictions in outdoor hospitality settings after the smoke-free law. METHODS: Telephone interviews were conducted among 1067 adult smokers before and after the 2008 indoor ban as part of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) France Survey. Among other topics, this survey measures how the smoking ban has influenced smoking behaviour relevant to outdoor sections of hospitality venues. In addition, 414 non-smoking adults and 164 respondents who had quit smoking between waves were also asked about support for outdoor smoking restrictions. RESULTS: Reported smoking outdoors at cafés/pubs/bars increased from 33.6% of smokers at Wave 1 to 75.9% at Wave 2. At restaurants, smoking outdoors increased from 28.9% to 59.0%. There was also an increase in reported non-smoking for both visits to cafés/pubs/bars, and restaurants from 13.4% to 24.7%, and 30.4% to 40.8% respectively. The majority of smokers (74.5%), non-smokers (89.4%) and quitters (74.0%) support a partial or complete ban on smoking in outdoor areas of restaurants. CONCLUSION: The indoor smoking ban moved smoking to outdoor spaces; however, the ban is also associated with increased non-smoking behaviour. The majority of respondents support outdoor smoking restrictions in patio environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".