Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$Interventions for treating proximal humeral fractures in adults (Review)$

EPOC 2009 Cochrane EPOC Group. Interrupted Time Series designs. http:// www.epoc.cochrane.org/Files/Website/Reviewer%20Resources/ inttime.pdf 2009. Fichtenberg 2002 Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. British Medical Journal 2002;325(7357):188–95. Hackshaw 1997 Hackshaw AK, Law MR. The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke. British Medical Journal 1997; 315(7114):980–8. IARC 2002 International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monographs Volume 83. Lyon: World Health Organization, 2002. IARC 2004 IARC. Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking. IARC Monographs May 2004; Vol. 83. Main 2005 MaIn C, Mather L, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, Thomas S, Whitehead M, Egan M. The inverse evidence law in tobacco control: findings from a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005;59(Suppl I):A24. NCI 1999 National Cancer Institute. Health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke: the report of the Californian Environmental Protection Agency. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 10. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Sciences, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, NIH, 1999. NHMRC 1997 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Health effects of passive smoking. www7.health.gov.au/nhmrc/publications/ reports/smoking/. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1997. NICE 2007 National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Workplace interventions to promote smoking cessation. London: NICE, April 2007. NRC 1986 National Research Council, Board on Environmental Studies, Toxicology. Committee on passive Smoking. Environmental tobacco smoke: measuring exposures and assessing health effects. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1986. Ogilvie 2005 Ogilvie D, Egan M, Hamilton, Petticrew M. Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go?. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2005;59:886–92. Ottawa 1986 World Health Organization. Ottawa charter for health promotion. www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/ottawa_charter_hp.pdf (accessed 16/ 1/2006) 1986. SCOTH 2004 Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Secondhand Smoke: Review of Evidence since 1998. Update of evidence on health effects of secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke: Review of evidence since 1998. Update of evidence on health effects of secondhand smoke. http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/. London: Department of Health, 2004. Tobacco Act 2002 Department of Health and Children, Republic of Ireland. Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2002 (section 47) Regulations 2003. Dublin: Department of Health and Children, 2003:www.doh.ie/ publications. Wells 1998 Wells AJ, English PB, Posner SF, Wagenknecht LE, Perez SE. Misclassification rates for current smokers misclassified as nonsmokers. American Journal of Public Health 1998;88(10): 1503–9. WHO 1986 World Health Organization. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion. Ottawa, WHO/HPR/HEP/95.. Geneva: WHO, November 1986. WHO 2003 World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO, 2003. WHO 2005 World Health Organisation. Why is tobacco a public health priority?. www.who.int/tobacco/health_priority/en (accessed 3 June 2005). ∗ Indicates the major publication for the study Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption (Review) Copyright © 2010 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 22
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S O F S T U D I E S Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID] Abrams 2006 Methods Country: USA Setting: New York Community Design: Observational study, cross-sectional surveys, pre and post-ban tests. Analysis: Chi 2 to test whether there were significant differences in demographic variables between pre-law and post-law groups; Mann-Whitney to test for significance. Participants Total sample (baseline and follow up):168. 14 casino employees, 63 non-casino hospitality, 91 non-hospitality employees. Female: 60%, White: 78%. Never smokers: 83%. Baseline: 107 Follow up: 61 at 5 months post-ban Ethnicity and education were significantly different from pre-law to post-law. Hispanics pre-law 13.1% vs post-law 4.7%; college graduates pre-law 34.4% vs post-law 44.4%. Interventions Clean Indoor Air Act in New York State in 2003 which banned smoking in workplaces including bars and restaurants. Outcomes Self-reported exposure to SHS as defined by the number of exposures, number of days exposed and total duration of exposure. Biochemical verification: Yes. Urinary cotinine measured exposure to SHS. Non-smoking status was verified with CO breath test
Page 1 and 2: Legislative smoking bans for reduci
Page 3 and 4: [Intervention Review] Legislative s
Page 5 and 6: Health effects associated with expo
Page 7 and 8: policy. Any measure of smoking beha
Page 9 and 10: Length of follow up For smoking beh
Page 11 and 12: of borderline significance, (3.5%,
Page 13 and 14: was reduced, but there was no evide
Page 15 and 16: ar and restaurant workers before an
Page 17 and 18: Albers 2004 {published data only} A
Page 19 and 20: Gorini 2008a {published data only}
Page 21 and 22: Offord 1992 {published data only} O
Page 23: ehaviour and cessation intentions.
Page 27 and 28: Allwright 2005 (Continued) Outcomes
Page 29 and 30: Bondy 2009 Methods Country: Canada
Page 31 and 32: CDC 2007 Methods Country: USA Setti
Page 33 and 34: Eisner 1998 Methods Country: USA Se
Page 35 and 36: Fernando 2007 Methods Country: New
Page 37 and 38: Fong 2006 Methods Country: Ireland
Page 39 and 40: Galán 2007 (Continued) provided. O
Page 41 and 42: Hahn 2006 (Continued) Interventions
Page 43 and 44: Heloma 2003 (Continued) Participant
Page 45 and 46: Khuder 2007 Methods Country: USA Se
Page 47 and 48: Menzies 2006 (Continued) Notes Only
Page 49 and 50: Pearson 2009 Methods Country: Ameri
Page 51 and 52: Sargent 2004 (Continued) Outcomes N
Page 53 and 54: Vasselli 2008 (Continued) Outcomes
Page 55 and 56: (Continued) Borland 1992 Three cros
Page 57 and 58: (Continued) Goldstein 1992 Survey o
Page 59 and 60: (Continued) Minihan 1999 Cross-sect
Page 61 and 62: (Continued) Proescholdbell 2008 No
Page 63 and 64: (Continued) Tillgren 1998a Post-tes
Page 65 and 66: D A T A A N D A N A L Y S E S Compa
Page 67 and 68: Self-reported perceptions (Continue
Page 75 and 76:
Self-reported perceptions (Continue
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Results:
Page 89 and 90:
Biomarkers of exposure (Continued)
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Measures of Active Smoking: Smoking
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Respiratory (Continued) Eisner 1998
Page 109 and 110:
Respiratory (Continued) Goodman 200
Page 111 and 112:
Respiratory (Continued) Menzies 200
Page 113 and 114:
Respiratory (Continued) Lung functi
Page 115 and 116:
Lung function (Continued) Larsson 2
Page 117 and 118:
Sensory Analysis 3.3. Comparison 3
Page 119 and 120:
Sensory (Continued) Larsson 2008 Co
Page 121 and 122:
Sensory (Continued) 21%, p< 0.001.
Page 123 and 124:
Hospital admission for acute corona
Page 125 and 126:
Hospital admission for acute corona
Page 127 and 128:
#11 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 or #
show all

Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?