Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Centre of Medical Informatics, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
BMJ Open. 2021 Feb 5;11(2):e040167. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040167.
Smoke-free enclosed public environments are effective in reducing exposure to secondhand smoke and yield major public health benefits. Building on this, many countries are now implementing smoke-free policies regulating smoking beyond enclosed public places and workplaces. In order to successfully implement such 'novel smoke-free policies', public support is essential. We aim to provide the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assessing levels and determinants of public support for novel smoke-free policies.
The primary objective of this review is to summarise the level of public support for novel smoke-free policies. Eight online databases (Embase.com, Medline ALL Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, WHO Library Database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scientific Online Library Online, PsychINFO and Google Scholar) will be searched from 1 January 2004 by two independent researchers with no language restrictions. The initial search was performed on 15 April 2020 and will be updated prior to finalisation of the report. Studies are eligible if assessing support for novel smoke-free policies in the general population (age ≥16 years) and have a sample size of n≥400. Studies funded by the tobacco industry or evaluating support among groups with vested interest are excluded. The primary outcome is proportion of public support for smoke-free policies, subdivided according to the spaces covered: (1) indoor private spaces (eg, cars) (2) indoor semiprivate spaces (eg, multi-unit housing) (3) outdoor (semi)private spaces (eg, courtyards) (4) non-hospitality outdoor public spaces (eg, parks, hospital grounds, playgrounds) and (5) hospitality outdoor public spaces (eg, restaurant terraces). The secondary objective is to identify determinants associated with public support on three levels: (1) within-study determinants (eg, smoking status) (2) between-study determinants (eg, survey year) and (3) context-specific determinants (eg, social norms). Risk of bias will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a sensitivity analysis will be performed excluding studies at high risk of bias.
No formal ethical approval is required. Findings will be disseminated to academics, policymakers and the general public.
无烟封闭公共环境可有效减少二手烟暴露，带来重大公共卫生效益。在此基础上，许多国家正在实施无烟政策，对封闭公共场所和工作场所之外的吸烟行为进行监管。为了成功实施此类“新型无烟政策”，公众支持至关重要。我们旨在提供首个全面的系统综述和荟萃分析，评估公众对新型无烟政策的支持程度和决定因素。
本综述的主要目的是总结公众对新型无烟政策的支持程度。两名独立研究人员将无语言限制地从 2004 年 1 月 1 日起在 8 个在线数据库（Embase.com、Medline ALL Ovid、Web of Science 核心合集、世界卫生组织图书馆数据库、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献、Scientific Online Library Online、PsychINFO 和 Google Scholar）中进行搜索。初步搜索于 2020 年 4 月 15 日进行，并在报告定稿前进行更新。如果研究评估了一般人群（年龄≥16 岁）对新型无烟政策的支持情况，且样本量 n≥400，则研究符合纳入标准。由烟草业资助或评估利益相关群体支持情况的研究将被排除。主要结果是对无烟政策的支持比例，根据涵盖的空间进行细分：（1）室内私人空间（如汽车）；（2）室内半私人空间（如多户住宅）；（3）室外（半）私人空间（如庭院）；（4）非酒店户外公共空间（如公园、医院场地、游乐场）和（5）酒店户外公共空间（如餐厅露台）。次要目标是确定与三个层面的公众支持相关的决定因素：（1）研究内决定因素（如吸烟状况）；（2）研究间决定因素（如调查年份）和（3）特定背景决定因素（如社会规范）。使用混合方法评估工具评估偏倚风险，并进行敏感性分析，排除高偏倚风险的研究。
无需正式的伦理批准。研究结果将传播给学者、政策制定者和公众。
