4.6 Article

Assessing the Impact of the National Smoking Ban in Indoor Public Places in China: Evidence from Quit Smoking Related Online Searches

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065577

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [1U01CA154254]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite the tremendous economic and health costs imposed on China by tobacco use, China lacks a proactive and systematic tobacco control surveillance and evaluation system, hampering research progress on tobacco-focused surveillance and evaluation studies. Methods: This paper uses online search query analyses to investigate changes in online search behavior among Chinese Internet users in response to the adoption of the national indoor public place smoking ban. Baidu Index and Google Trends were used to examine the volume of search queries containing three key search terms Smoking Ban and Electronic Cigarette(s), along with the news coverage on the smoking ban, for the period 2009-2011. Findings: Our results show that announcement and adoption of the indoor public place smoking ban in China generated significant increases in news coverage on smoking bans. There was a strong positive correlation between the media coverage of smoking bans and the volume of Smoking Ban(s), Quit Smoking, related search queries. The volume of search queries related to Electronic Cigarette(s) was also correlated with the smoking ban news coverage. Interpretation: To the extent is altered smoking-related online searches, our analyses suggest that the smoking ban had a significant effect, at least in the short run, on Chinese Internet users' smoking-related behaviors. This research introduces a novel analytic tool, which could serve as an alternative tobacco control evaluation and behavior surveillance tool in the absence of timely or comprehensive population surveillance system. This research also highlights the importance of a comprehensive approach to tobacco control in China.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据