Public support for smoke-free policies in outdoor areas and (semi-) private places: a systematic review and meta-analysis 87 4 Table 2: Meta-regression analysis per category of smoke-free place based on 99 studies with 326 estimates of support Areas of smoke-free policies Variable OR 95%CI p-value Indoor private (n = 58) Study year, per year increase 1.01 (0.93-1.11) .744 Number of smoke-free policies in place 0.97 (0.86-1.08) .554 Low- and middle-income country* 1.23 (0.44-3.39) .687 Indoor semi-private (n = 24) Study year, per year increase 1.08 (0.97-1.20) .152 Number of smoke-free policies in place 1.14 (0.86-1.52) .329 Low- and middle-income country* 1.19 (0.11-12.92) .880 Question type** 2.40 (0.94-6.14) .066 Outdoor hospitality (n = 24) Study year, per year increase 0.93 (0.85-1.01) .086 Number of smoke-free policies in place 1.08 (0.97-1.20) .170 Low- and middle-income country* 1.14 (0.53-2.44) .723 Outdoor non-hospitality (n = 204) Study year, per year increase 0.97 (0.92-1.02) .216 Number of smoke-free policies in place 1.02 (0.95-1.09) .576 Low- and middle-income country* 2.19 (1.25-3.86) .006 Question type** 1.06 (0.42-2.67) .904 * ref = High-income country (using World Bank criteria) ** ref = Binary question Sensitivity analyses Pooled estimates for studies at high risk vs. lower risk of bias showed that support for policies concerning outdoor private places was higher among studies with a lower risk of bias (see Appendix IX). Most higher-risk studies lacked information on the question “Is the risk of non-response bias low?”. Funnel plots of sample size against log odd were not suggestive of publication bias (Appendix X))
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw