Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-) private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis 77 4 Methods Search strategy and selection criteria We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with our peerreviewed review protocol.12 As we did not have a clinical outcome, PROSPERO considered our protocol ineligible for registration. Our review is reported according to the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Six electronic databases were searched (Embase.com, Medline Ovid, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, CINHAL data based and PsychINFO) for reports published between 1 January 2004 and 19 January 2022 that reported public support for novel smoke-free policies (see Appendix I for the complete list of search terms). The search was conducted on 17 March 2020 and updated 19 January 2022. No restrictions were applied for language; studies were translated using Google Translate if needed. Additional relevant reports were included through reference and citation screening of included papers.13 All records were extracted into EndNote (EndNote X9, Thomson Reuters, New York, USA) and automatically and manually de-duplicated. Two reviewers (NWB and AsS) independently screened all titles and abstracts, and subsequently the full texts, to identify eligible studies. Any discrepancies were resolved via involving a third reviewer (JVB). Eligibility Eligible studies investigated support for smoke-free policies in indoor private places (e.g. cars, homes), indoor semi-private places (e.g. multi-unit housing), outdoor semi-private places (e.g. shared gardens), outdoor hospitality places (e.g. terraces of bars and restaurants), or outdoor non-hospitality places (e.g. playgrounds, streets, beaches). Policies could already have been in place, were planned, or were hypothetical (e.g. before plans for implementation have started). Studies were only eligible when support was assessed in a population aged 16 years or above, representing the majority of a population affected by the policy (e.g. support for smoke-free university campus assessed among university students). Studies were excluded if: 1) less than 400 participants were included; this limit is based on survey sample size calculations to ensure a margin of error of 5%,12 2) support was only reported for indoor public places or workplaces, 3) the policy only covered non-combustible tobacco products (e.g. electronic cigarettes or heat-not-burn tobacco products), or 4) published before 1 January 2004. This pragmatic cut-off was chosen because the first national traditional
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw