Chapter 4 80 In addition to the subgroup analysis three-level meta-regression analysis was conducted. Variables of interest were: calendar year in which the study was conducted, country income level (high- vs. low- and middle-income (LIMC)), and the comprehensiveness of traditional smoke-free policies in place (range: 0 – no smoke-free policies in place to 8 – all public places completely smokefree, based on WHO criteria).15 Additional post-hoc analyses were performed to assess differences in support over time by four-year interval groups and for hypothetical policies (i.e. no plans existing for future implementation) versus non-hypothetical policies. Finally, a sensitivity analysis to explore the impact of risk-of-bias of individual studies on the findings was performed by repeating the meta-analysis separately for studies with low risk of bias and studies at higher risk of bias (i.e. studies which had no or can’t tell on at least one of the MMAT criteria). As appropriate for proportional data, publication bias was assessed using funnel plots of study size against log odds.20, 21 Ethics: No humans were involved hence we did not seek ethical approval. Role of the funding source The funders were not involved in writing the manuscript or the decision to submit for publication. All authors interpreted the analyses, read and approved the final manuscript, had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Results 14,749 records were identified from the databases. Duplicates and reports published before 2004 were omitted, resulting in 6,192 unique records to screen. Full-text records were assessed for 348 records and 107 reports were included (Figure 1).22-128 The included reports presented estimates of public support for novel smoke-free places from 33 different countries. Appendix II reports the geographic location, the smoke-free place, measure of support, sample size, and the reported support per study. Most reports (n=67) assessed support for hypothetical scenarios, i.e. support for smoke-free places not yet in place without referring to concrete plans for implementation or actual implementation (see Appendix III).22-27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 39, 42, 43, 47-51, 56-58, 60, 61, 63-68, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77-79, 81, 83, 85-87, 89-93, 95, 99, 100, 102-106, 108, 110, 112, 115, 116, 119, 120,
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw