Chapter 4 82 Meta-analysis Eight reports were not included in meta-analyses: three because public support estimates from the same study population in more recent years were available,36, 37, 77 one report because the outcome measure included a combined score for novel and traditional policies,62 one report because it only reported support combined for multiple countries,125 one report because it did not present the sample size, 128 and two due to overlapping samples. 69, 96 Lund et al. also overlapped, expect for one estimate on outdoor hospitality and was therefore still included.83 Public support for smoke-free policies was pooled for six main categories of places, which were further categorised into 15 subgroups. Table 1 provides an overview of the number of studies and their combined sample sizes per category of smokefree places. The majority of countries in which the studies were conducted had traditional smoke-free legislation in place covering four to five out of eight public places. Likert scale questions were more frequently used than binary questions to assess support. Table 1: Descriptive statistics of 99 studies with 326 estimates of support for novel smokefree policies included in the meta-analysis Places of smokefree policies Estimates of support across studiesa (n) Sample size (n) High income country (%)b Number of WHO recommended smoke-free policies in placec Median (IQR) Likert scale question (%)d Hypothetical question (%)e Indoor private 61 950,436 80 6(7) 100 95 Cars with children 30 518,621 83 6(7) 100 90 Cars 22 419,449 86 8(5) 100 100 Homes 9 12,366 56 1(2) 100 100 Indoor semiprivate 25 35,447 79 1(2) 88 71 Multi-unit housing 17 25,639 82 1(2) 88 71 Other semiprivate 7 9,754 71 2(6) 88 71 Outdoor hospitality 24 114,062 75 6(5) 100 96 Outdoor nonhospitality 208 867,344 79 6(7) 97 77 Areas surrounding building entrances 8 96,653 62 5(6) 100 75 Areas surrounding health care facilities 24 32,628 91 8(4) 100 67 Event locations 24 39,367 83 6(4) 96 92
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw