The Effect of Differently Worded No-Smoking Signs on Smoking Behavior

Dawley, Harold H.; Morrison, John E.; Carrol, Sudie

doi:10.3109/10826088109039197

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fourteen studies, nine published between 1981 and 1999 and five published more recently, evaluated smoking restrictions or bans in the workplace or in public places14 – 27 in the United States,14 16 20 21 23 – 26 Australia,15 New Zealand,27 Israel,17 Finland,18 Scotland22 and Wales 19. The interventions consisted of a total ban on indoor smoking,14 15 17 24 25 27 a smoking ban with exceptions,22 restricting smoking to designated rooms or areas18 19 21 23 or displaying no-smoking signs in a hospital lobby 16.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To assess the effects of population tobacco control interventions on social inequalities in smoking.Data sources:Medical, nursing, psychological, social science and grey literature databases, bibliographies, hand-searches and contact with authors.Study selection:Studies were included (n = 84) if they reported the effects of any population-level tobacco control intervention on smoking behaviour or attitudes in individuals or groups with different demographic or socioeconomic characteristics.Data extraction:Data extraction and quality assessment for each study were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second.Data synthesis:Data were synthesised using graphical (“harvest plot”) and narrative methods. No strong evidence of differential effects was found for smoking restrictions in workplaces and public places, although those in higher occupational groups may be more likely to change their attitudes or behaviour. Smoking restrictions in schools may be more effective in girls. Restrictions on sales to minors may be more effective in girls and younger children. Increasing the price of tobacco products may be more effective in reducing smoking among lower-income adults and those in manual occupations, although there was also some evidence to suggest that adults with higher levels of education may be more price-sensitive. Young people aged under 25 are also affected by price increases, with some evidence that boys and non-white young people may be more sensitive to price.Conclusions:Population-level tobacco control interventions have the potential to benefit more disadvantaged groups and thereby contribute to reducing health inequalities.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interventions consisted of a total ban on indoor smoking,14 15 17 24 25 27 a smoking ban with exceptions,22 restricting smoking to designated rooms or areas18 19 21 23 or displaying no-smoking signs in a hospital lobby 16. The nature of the smoking ban was unclear in two studies 20 26.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No-smoking signs and posters are an important deterrent to initiation of smoking in an area where it is prohibited because they convey the rule that smoking is not allowed without necessarily conveying the fact that there is a law against it [20]. Although some studies have found minimal changes in smoke exposure after placement of no-smoking signs [21, 22] and worse still when there is minimal enforcement [22], others have found evidence of less smoking when the signs are instituted [23] and penalties for violations clearly stated. As the new legislation is being disseminated, owners of public places need to be informed of their responsibility to place no-smoking signs as a deterrent for people from smoking on their premises.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practices related to tobacco sale, promotion and protection from tobacco smoke exposure in restaurants and bars in Kampala before implementation of the Uganda tobacco control Act 2015

Kabwama¹,

Kadobera²,

Ndyanabangi³

et al. 2017

Tob. Induced Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Word Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control calls on parties to implement evidenced-based tobacco control policies, which includes Article 8 (protect the public from exposure to tobacco smoke), and Article 13 (tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS)). In 2015, Uganda passed the Tobacco Control Act 2015 which includes a comprehensive ban on smoking in all public places and on all forms of TAPS. Prior to implementation, we sought to assess practices related to protection of the public from tobacco smoke exposure, limiting access to tobacco products and TAPS in restaurants and bars in Kampala City to inform implementation of the new law.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study that used an observational checklist to guide observations. Assessments were: whether an establishment allows for tobacco products to be smoked on premises, offer of tobacco products for sale, observation of tobacco products for sale, tobacco advertising posters, illuminated tobacco advertisements, tobacco promotional items, presence of designated smoking zones, no-smoking signs and posters, and observation of indoor smoking. Managers of establishments were also asked whether they conducted tobacco product sales promotions within establishments. Data were collected in May 2016, immediately prior to implementation of the smoke-free and TAPS laws.ResultsOf the 218 establishments in the study, 17% (n = 37) had no-smoking signs, 50% (n = 108) allowed for tobacco products to be smoked on premises of which, 63% (n = 68) had designated smoking zones. Among the respondents in the study, 33.3% (n = 72) reported having tobacco products available for sale of which 73.6% (n = 53) had manufactured cigarettes as the available tobacco products. Eleven percent (n = 24) of respondents said they conducted tobacco promotion within their establishment while 7.9% (n = 17) had promotional items given to them by tobacco companies.ConclusionHospitality establishments in Kampala are not protecting the public from tobacco smoke exposure nor adequately limiting access to tobacco products. Effective dissemination of the Tobacco Control Act 2015 is important in ensuring that owners of public places are aware of their responsibility of complying with critical tobacco control laws. This would also likely increase self-enforcement among owners of hospitality establishments and public patrons of the no-smoking restrictions.

show abstract

“…Internationally, there is a lack of research on the effective elements for smokefree signs, with one of the few articles being from 1981. This indicated that positive rather than negative messages may be more effective [ 14 ]. Smoker perceptions that smoking is not normal appear to be associated with quitting and quit success [ 15 , 16 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smokefree signage at children’s playgrounds: Field observations and comparison with Google Street View

Thomson

Wilson

2017

Tob. Induced Dis.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Although there is global growth in outdoor smokefree areas, little is known about the associated smokefree signage. We aimed to study smokefree signage at playgrounds and to compare field observations with images from Google Street View (GSV). Methods: We randomly selected playgrounds in 21 contiguous local government areas in the lower North Island of New Zealand, all of which had smokefree playground policies. Field data were collected on smokefree signage along with dog control signage to allow for comparisons. The sensitivity and specificity of using GSV for data collection were calculated. Results: Out of the 63 playgrounds studied, only 44% (95% CI: 33%-57%) had any smokefree signage within 10 m of the playground equipment. The mean number of such signs was 0.8 per playground (range: 0 to 6). Sign size varied greatly from 42 cm 2 up to 2880 cm

show abstract

The Effect of Differently Worded No-Smoking Signs on Smoking Behavior

Cited by 19 publications

References 3 publications

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review

Practices related to tobacco sale, promotion and protection from tobacco smoke exposure in restaurants and bars in Kampala before implementation of the Uganda tobacco control Act 2015

Smokefree signage at children’s playgrounds: Field observations and comparison with Google Street View

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About