The influence of newspaper coverage and a media campaign on smokers' support for smoke-free bars and restaurants and on secondhand smoke harm awareness: findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of newspaper coverage and a media campaign about Dutch smoke-free legislation on smokers' support for smoke-free bars and restaurants and on secondhand smoke (SHS) harm awareness. DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A content analysis was conducted of 1041 newspaper articles on the smoke-free legislation published in six Dutch newspapers from March 2008 to April 2009. Smokers who were regular readers of at least one of these newspapers (n = 677) were selected from the pre-ban and post-ban waves of the International Tobacco Control Netherlands Survey. Exposure to newspaper coverage and the implementation campaign was correlated with changes in smokers' support for smoke-free bars and restaurants and SHS harm awareness. RESULTS: Most newspaper coverage was found to be negative towards the smoking ban (57%) and focused on economic aspects (59%) rather than health aspects (22%). Exposure to this coverage had a small but significantly negative effect on support for smoke-free bars and restaurants (β = -0.09, p = 0.013). Among higher educated smokers, exposure to positive newspaper coverage had a more positive effect on support for smoke-free bars and restaurants. In addition, exposure to the implementation campaign had a small but significantly positive effect on SHS harm awareness (β = 0.11, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Media attention on smoke-free legislation can influence smokers' support for the legislation and SHS harm awareness. Tobacco control advocates should aim to establish positive media attention that puts forward the health arguments for the legislation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".