Assessing public support for extending smoke-free policies beyond enclosed public places and workplaces: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Public support for smoke-free private indoor and public outdoor areas in the Netherlands: A trend analysis from 2018-2022

INTRODUCTION

In addition to smoke-free policies in indoor public and workplaces, governments increasingly implement smoke-free policies at beaches, in parks, playgrounds and private cars ('novel smoke-free policies'). An important element in the implementation of such policies is public support. In the context of the ambition of the Netherlands to reach a smoke-free generation by 2040, we investigated temporal changes in public support for novel smoke-free policies.

METHODS

We analyzed annual cross-sectional questionnaires in a representative sample of the Dutch population from 2018 to 2022. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to model public support for each smoke-free policy area as a function of time (calendar year), smoking status, gender, and socioeconomic status. Interaction terms were added for time with smoking status and with socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

A total of 5582 participant responses were included. Between 2018 and 2022, support increased most for smoke-free policies regarding train platforms (+16%), theme parks (+12%), beaches (+10%), and terraces (+10%). In 2022, average support was higher than 65% for all categories of smoke-free places and highest for private cars with children (91%). Regression analyses indicated significant increases in support over time within each category of smoke-free places (adjusted odds ratio, AOR between 1.09 and 1.17 per year), except smoke-free private cars with children (AOR=0.97; 95% CI: 0.89-1.05). Regardless of smoking status, support was high for places where children often go.

CONCLUSIONS

Support for novel smoke-free places in the Netherlands is high and increasing, in particular for places frequented by children. This indicates the potential to implement such measures in the Netherlands.

Air Pollution inside Vehicles: Making a Bad Situation Worse

Thailand has successfully forwarded Article 8, Protection from Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, of the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). It achieved its 100% smoke-free goals in public places in 2010, next pursuing other bans in outdoor places to lower particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5). Our aim was to expose the secondhand smoke levels in vehicles since SHS is a danger to everyone, but especially to children and youth. This is the first experimental study of its kind in Thailand. We measured PM2.5 for 20 min under four conditions in 10 typical Thai vehicles, including commonly used sedans and small pickup trucks. We used an established protocol with two real-time air monitoring instruments to record PM2.5 increases with different vehicle air exchange and air conditioning conditions. Monitoring was recorded in the vehicle's front and back seats. The most common Thai ventilation condition is all windows closed with fan/air conditioning (AC) in operation because of Thai tropical conditions. Mean exposure levels were three and nearly five times (49 and 72 μg/m3) the 24 h WHO standard of 15 μg/m3 in the back and front seats, respectively. These high PM2.5 exposure levels warrant action to limit vehicle smoking for public health protection.

Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-)private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Smoke-free policies are essential to protect people against tobacco smoke exposure. To successfully implement smoke-free policies that go beyond enclosed public places and workplaces, public support is important. We undertook a comprehensive systematic review of levels and determinants of public support for indoor (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies.

Methods

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, six electronic databases were searched for studies (published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022) reporting support for (semi-)private and outdoor smoke-free policies in representative samples of at least 400 respondents aged 16 years and above. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of individual reports using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The primary outcome was proportion support for smoke-free policies, grouped according to location covered. Three-level meta-analyses, subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed.

Findings

14,749 records were screened, of which 107 were included; 42 had low risk of bias and 65 were at moderate risk. 99 studies were included in the meta-analyses, reporting 326 measures of support from 896,016 individuals across 33 different countries. Support was pooled for indoor private areas (e.g., private cars, homes: 73%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 66-79), indoor semi-private areas (e.g., multi-unit housing: 70%, 95% CI: 48-86), outdoor hospitality areas (e.g., café and restaurant terraces: 50%, 95% CI: 43-56), outdoor non-hospitality areas (e.g., school grounds, playgrounds, parks, beaches: 69%, 95% CI: 64-73), outdoor semi-private areas (e.g., shared gardens: 67%, 95% CI: 53-79) and outdoor private areas (e.g., private balconies: 41%, 95% CI: 18-69). Subcategories showed highest support for smoke-free cars with children (86%, 95% CI: 81-89), playgrounds (80%, 95% CI: 74-86) and school grounds (76%, 95% CI: 69-83). Non-smokers and ex-smokers were more in favour of smoke-free policies compared to smokers. Support generally increased over time, and following implementation of each smoke-free policy.

Interpretation

Our findings suggested that public support for novel smoke-free policies is high, especially in places frequented by children. Governments should be reassured about public support for implementation of novel smoke-free policies.

Funding

Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation.

Mental Health during the COVID-19 Crisis in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aim to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence rates of mental health symptoms among major African populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include articles from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and medRxiv between 1 February 2020 and 6 February 2021, and pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses. We identify 28 studies and 32 independent samples from 12 African countries with a total of 15,071 participants. The pooled prevalence of anxiety was 37% in 27 studies, of depression was 45% in 24 studies, and of insomnia was 28% in 9 studies. The pooled prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in North Africa (44%, 55%, and 31%, respectively) are higher than those in Sub-Saharan Africa (31%, 30%, and 24%, respectively). We find (a) a scarcity of studies in several African countries with a high number of COVID-19 cases; (b) high heterogeneity among the studies; (c) the extent and pattern of prevalence of mental health symptoms in Africa is high and differs from elsewhere-more African adults suffer from depression rather than anxiety and insomnia during COVID 19 compared to adult populations in other countries/regions. Hence, our findings carry crucial implications and impact future research to enable evidence-based medicine in Africa.

Mental Health during the COVID-19 Crisis in Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aim to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence rates of mental health symptoms among major African populations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include articles from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and medRxiv between 1 February 2020 and 6 February 2021, and pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses. We identify 28 studies and 32 independent samples from 12 African countries with a total of 15,071 participants. The pooled prevalence of anxiety was 37% in 27 studies, of depression was 45% in 24 studies, and of insomnia was 28% in 9 studies. The pooled prevalence rates of anxiety, depression, and insomnia in North Africa (44%, 55%, and 31%, respectively) are higher than those in Sub-Saharan Africa (31%, 30%, and 24%, respectively). We find (a) a scarcity of studies in several African countries with a high number of COVID-19 cases; (b) high heterogeneity among the studies; (c) the extent and pattern of prevalence of mental health symptoms in Africa is high and differs from elsewhere-more African adults suffer from depression rather than anxiety and insomnia during COVID 19 compared to adult populations in other countries/regions. Hence, our findings carry crucial implications and impact future research to enable evidence-based medicine in Africa.

Effect of smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and private places on children's tobacco smoke exposure and respiratory health: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and semi-private and private places (eg, cars) might reduce the health harms caused by tobacco smoke exposure (TSE). We aimed to investigate the effect of smoke-free policies covering outdoor areas or semi-private and private places on TSE and respiratory health in children, to inform policy.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched 13 electronic databases from date of inception to Jan 29, 2021, for published studies that assessed the effects of smoke-free policies in outdoor areas or semi-private or private places on TSE, respiratory health outcomes, or both, in children. Non-randomised and randomised trials, interrupted time series, and controlled before-after studies, without restrictions to the observational period, publication date, or language, were eligible for the main analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data, including adjusted test statistics from each study using a prespecified form, and assessed risk of bias for effect estimates from each study using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tool. Primary outcomes were TSE in places covered by the policy, unplanned hospital attendance for wheezing or asthma, and unplanned hospital attendance for respiratory tract infections, in children younger than 17 years. Random-effects meta-analyses were done when at least two studies evaluated policies that regulated smoking in similar places and reported on the same outcome. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190563.

FINDINGS

We identified 5745 records and assessed 204 full-text articles for eligibility, of which 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. Of these studies, seven fit prespecified robustness criteria as recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care group, assessing smoke-free cars (n=5), schools (n=1), and a comprehensive policy covering multiple areas (n=1). Risk of bias was low in three studies, moderate in three, and critical in one. In the meta-analysis of ten effect estimates from four studies, smoke-free car policies were associated with an immediate TSE reduction in cars (risk ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·55-0·87; 161 466 participants); heterogeneity was substantial (I² 80·7%; p<0·0001). One additional study reported a gradual TSE decrease in cars annually. Individual studies found TSE reductions on school grounds, following a smoke-free school policy, and in hospital attendances for respiratory tract infection, following a comprehensive smoke-free policy.

INTERPRETATION

Smoke-free car policies are associated with reductions in reported child TSE in cars, which could translate into respiratory health benefits. Few additional studies assessed the effect of policies regulating smoking in outdoor areas and semi-private and private places on children's TSE or health outcomes. On the basis of these findings, governments should consider including private cars in comprehensive smoke-free policies to protect child health.

FUNDING

Dutch Heart Foundation, Lung Foundation Netherlands, Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation, Netherlands Thrombosis Foundation, and Health Data Research UK.