| Literature DB >> 31963154 |
Yelena Bird1, Ladan Kashaniamin2, Chijioke Nwankwo3, John Moraros4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature addressing the effectiveness of legislative smoking bans and anti-tobacco media campaigns in reducing smoking among women.Entities:
Keywords: anti-tobacco media campaigns; legislative smoking bans; smoking; women
Year: 2020 PMID: 31963154 PMCID: PMC7151169 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8010020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthcare (Basel) ISSN: 2227-9032
Figure 1PRISMA diagram, study selection process. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.
Study Characteristics.
| Year | Author | Purpose | Study Type | Data Source | Number of Females | Age Range of Females (years) | Type of Intervention | Type of Outcome | OR (CI) | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Zablocki et al. | To assess the association of smoking ban policies with smoking reduction and quit attempts among California smokers. | Cross sectional | 2011 California longitudinal smokers survey | 934 | ≥18 | Home smoking ban, work place smoking ban, perceived city/community smoking ban | Smoking prevalence | OR: 1.1 | Participants are randomly selected, first study to examine the association of perceived city/town smoking bans at outdoor locations with smoking behaviors. | Intervention & outcome data were assessed using self-reported data. Only 50% of the sample participated in the follow-up. |
| 2012 | Page et al. | To examine the effect of a citywide smoking ban in comparison to a municipality with no smoking ban in Colorado on maternal smoking outcomes and subsequent fetal birth outcomes. | Natural experiment | State of Colorado Department of Health, Colorado Birth Registry, and the Infant Mortality Registry data | 19,769 | All ages were included. | Legislative smoking ban | Smoking prevalence | OR: 1.26 | First evidence in regard to improvement of fetal outcomes and preterm birth as a result of smoking ban in the United States. Including a comparison group with same demographics in the study. | Self-reported data is used, Mothers’ exposure to second-hand smoke was not measured directly. Paternal smoking history was not included in the data to estimate SHS. Maternal self-report is probably under-reported due to social stigma related to smoking during pregnancy. Mothers reported lifetime smoking, not in the time period close to the pregnancy. |
| 2011 | Rose et al. | To assess the prevalence of work place and home smoking bans and their associations with intention to quit, quit attempts, and 3-month sustained abstinence among employed females. | Cross sectional | Cross-sectional data from the 2006/2007 Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey | 7610 | 18–64 | Home and work place smoking bans | Smoking prevalence | AOR: 1.29 | First study to examine the association of full smoking bans (at home and work place) with smoking behaviors among employed female smokers. Effect of complete work and home ban was analysed in addition to their separate effects. | Employed indoor females were included in this study. Therefore these data may not be generalizable to all females. The data reported are cross-sectional and do not allow for causal associations. Self-reported data is used. Detailed information such as coworkers and spouse smoking and quitting were not collected in the dataset which they may be influential on smoking behaviour. |
| 2009 | Levy et al. | To examine the association between tobacco control policies (clean air laws and media campaigns) with smoking prevalence. | Cross sectional | Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey 1992–2002 | Total sample: 707,720 (Number of females not mentioned) | ≥18 | Antismoking policies, Anti-smoking media campaigns | Smoking prevalence | OR (Clean air): 1.33 | Examining the effect of different tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence. A dataset related to a large population was used. Age and gender variations in addition to variations over time were considered in the study. | Different forms of policies that may have different effects, were included to the policy measure. Socio-economic factors were not considered in the study. |
| 2007 | Terry-McElrath et al. | To examine the association between anti-tobacco advertising and smoking related outcomes with respect to gender and race/ethnicity | Cross sectional | 8th, 10th, and 12th grades student data in 1999–2003 collected by Monitoring the Future study | 64,840 | 14–18 | Anti-smoking media campaigns | Smoking prevalence | OR: 0.92 | First study to examine the association between exposure to anti-tobacco advertising and smoking outcomes in 8th, 10th, 12th grades students. Comparison among males and females and among different racial/ethnic groups was performed. | Hispanics were included in the study population. However, Spanish-language TV channels were not included. |
Figure 2Overall pooled estimates.
Risk of bias assessment using modified Newcastle Ottawa Scales (NOSs).
| NOS. | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Risk of Bias | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Author | Representativeness | Ascertainment of Exposure | Outcome at start | Rating | Controls for Gender | Controls for covariates | Rating | Assessment of outcome | Completeness of outcome | Rating | |
| 2014 | Zablocki et al. | 1 | 0 | 1 | Good | 1 | 1 | Good | 0 | 1 | Fair | Moderate |
| 2011 | Rose A et al. | 1 | 1 | 1 | Good | 1 | 1 | Good | 0 | 1 | Fair | Moderate |
| 2009 | Levy et al. | 1 | 1 | 1 | Good | 1 | 1 | Good | 0 | 1 | Fair | Moderate |
| 2007 | Terry-McElrath et al. | 1 | 1 | 1 | Good | 1 | 1 | Good | 0 | 1 | Fair | Moderate |
| NOS | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Risk of bias | ||||||||
| Year | Author | Representativeness | Ascertainment of Exposure | Outcome at start | Rating | Controls for Gender | Controls for covariate | Rating | Assessment of outcome | Completeness of outcome | Rating | |
| 2012 | Page et al. | 1 | 1 | 1 | Good | 1 | 1 | Good | 0 | 1 | Good | Low |