Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-) private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis 85 4 Heterogeneity Heterogeneity was assessed within (level 1) and between (level 2) studies, and between countries (level 3, Appendix VII). Overall heterogeneity was 69% or higher for all types of locations, indicating substantial heterogeneity across the three levels.131 Subgroup analyses Support was almost uniformly significantly higher among non-smokers and former smokers than among current smokers with ORs ranging between 2.45 and 6.13 (Figure 3). Non-smokers showed higher support than former smokers, although these differences were more modest (OR range between 1.64 and 3.19). No significant differences in support were observed between the youngest and oldest age groups and between parents and those without children. Compared to men, women were slightly but significantly more often in favour of novel smokefree policies. Meta-regression Meta-regression analyses indicated no significant associations between question type, study year, and number of indoor public places covered by smoke-free legislation and support for novel smoke-free policies (Table 2). People from LMICs generally had comparable levels of support compared to those from high income countries, except for outdoor non-hospitality policies, where support was substantially higher in LMICs (OR= 2.12, 95%CI 1.17-3.68). In post-hoc analyses support was higher for indoor-private and outdoor hospitality policies when they were planned or already in place, as compared to when not yet planned or implemented. For indoor semi-private policies, the opposite was true (Appendix VIII).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw