Thomson George, Wilson Nick
University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Tob Induc Dis. 2017 Aug 23;15:37. doi: 10.1186/s12971-017-0143-x. eCollection 2017.
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).
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.
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 up to 2880 cm; but was typically fairly small (median = 600 cm; ie, as per a 20 × 30 cm rectangle). Qualitatively the dog signs appeared to use clearer images and were less wordy than the smokefree signs. Most playground equipment (82%), could be seen on GSV, but for these settings the sensitivity for identifying smokefree signs was poor at 16%. Yet specificity was reasonable at 96%.
The presence and quality of smokefree signage was poor in this sample of children's playgrounds in this developed country setting. There appears to be value in comparing smokefree signage with other types of signage (eg, dog control signage). Google Street View was not a sensitive tool for studying such signage.
尽管全球范围内户外无烟区域在不断增加,但对于相关的无烟标识却知之甚少。我们旨在研究游乐场的无烟标识,并将实地观察结果与谷歌街景(GSV)图像进行比较。
我们在新西兰北岛下部21个相邻的地方政府区域中随机选择了游乐场,所有这些区域都有游乐场无烟政策。收集了关于无烟标识以及犬类控制标识的实地数据,以便进行比较。计算了使用GSV进行数据收集的敏感性和特异性。
在所研究的63个游乐场中,只有44%(95%置信区间:33%-57%)在游乐场设备10米范围内有任何无烟标识。每个游乐场此类标识的平均数量为0.8个(范围:0至6个)。标识大小差异很大,从42厘米到2880厘米不等;但通常相当小(中位数 = 600厘米;即相当于一个20×30厘米的矩形)。定性来看,犬类标识似乎使用了更清晰的图像,且比无烟标识文字更少。大多数游乐场设备(82%)在GSV上可以看到,但对于这些场景,识别无烟标识的敏感性很差,为16%。然而特异性较为合理,为96%。
在这个发达国家环境下的儿童游乐场样本中,无烟标识的存在情况和质量较差。将无烟标识与其他类型的标识(如犬类控制标识)进行比较似乎有价值。谷歌街景不是研究此类标识的敏感工具。