SHORT REPORT
Smokefree signage at children’s playgrounds: Field observations and comparison with Google Street View
George Thomson 1  
,  
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
George Thomson   

University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
Publish date: 2017-08-23
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2017;15(August):37
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Although there is global growth in outdoor smokefree areas, little is known about the associated smokefree signage. We aimed to study smokefree signage at playgrounds and to compare field observations with images from Google Street View (GSV).

Methods:
We randomly selected playgrounds in 21 contiguous local government areas in the lower North Island of New Zealand, all of which had smokefree playground policies. Field data were collected on smokefree signage along with dog control signage to allow for comparisons. The sensitivity and specificity of using GSV for data collection were calculated.

Results:
Out of the 63 playgrounds studied, only 44% (95% CI: 33%–57%) had any smokefree signage within 10 m of the playground equipment. The mean number of such signs was 0.8 per playground (range: 0 to 6). Sign size varied greatly from 42 cm2 up to 2880 cm2; but was typically fairly small (median = 600 cm2; ie, as per a 20 × 30 cm rectangle). Qualitatively the dog signs appeared to use clearer images and were less wordy than the smokefree signs. Most playground equipment (82%), could be seen on GSV, but for these settings the sensitivity for identifying smokefree signs was poor at 16%. Yet specificity was reasonable at 96%.

Conclusions:
The presence and quality of smokefree signage was poor in this sample of children’s playgrounds in this developed country setting. There appears to be value in comparing smokefree signage with other types of signage (eg, dog control signage). Google Street View was not a sensitive tool for studying such signage.

 
REFERENCES (18)
1.
Thomson G, Wilson N, Collins D, et al. Attitudes to smoke-free outdoor regulations in the USA and Canada: a review of 89 surveys. Tob Control. 2016;25:506–16.
 
2.
Wilson N, Oliver J, Thomson G. Ten years of a national law covering smoke-free school grounds: a brief review. Tob Control. 2016;25:122.
 
3.
Zablocki RW, Edland SD, Myers MG, et al. Smoking ban policies and their influence on smoking behaviors among current California smokers: a population-based study. Prev Med. 2014;59:73–8.
 
4.
Chaiton M, Diemert L, Zhang B, et al. Exposure to smoking on patios and quitting: a population representative longitudinal cohort study. Tob Control. 2016;25:83–8.
 
5.
Azagba S. Effect of smoke-free patio policy of restaurants and bars on exposure to second-hand smoke. Prev Med. 2015;76:74–8.
 
6.
Pederson A, Okoli CT, Hemsing N, et al. Smoking on the margins: a comprehensive analysis of a municipal outdoor smoke-free policy. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:852.
 
7.
Wilson N, Thomson G, Edwards R. The potential of Google street view for studying smokefree signage. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015;39:295–6.
 
8.
Wilson N, Thomson G. Survey of smokefree signage at playgrounds: the potential value of comparisons with dog control signage. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2016;40:395.
 
9.
Wilson N, Thomson G. Surveying all outdoor smokefree signage in contrasting suburbs: methods and results. Health Promot J Austr. 2017:Online January 19th.
 
10.
Record R, Helme D, Savage M, et al. Let’s clear the air: a campaign that effectively increased compliance with a university’s tobacco-free policy. Journal of Applied Communications Research. 2017;45:79–95.
 
11.
Wilson N, Thomson G. Suboptimal smokefree signage at some hospitals: field observations and the use of Google street view. N Z Med J. 2015;128:56–9.
 
12.
Schootman M, Nelson EJ, Werner K, et al. Emerging technologies to measure neighborhood conditions in public health: implications for interventions and next steps. Int J Health Geogr. 2016;15:20.
 
13.
Zhang Z, Jia L, Qin Y. Optimal number and location planning of evacuation signage in public space. Saf Sci. 2017;91:132–47.
 
14.
Dawley HH Jr, Morrison J, Carrol S. The effect of differently worded no-smoking signs on smoking behavior. Int J Addict. 1981;16:1467–71.
 
15.
Hammond D, Fong GT, Zanna MP, et al. Tobacco denormalization and industry beliefs among smokers from four countries. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31:225–32.
 
16.
Im P, McNeill A, Thompson M, et al. Individual and interpersonal triggers to quit smoking in China: a cross-sectional analysis. Tob Control. 2015;24:iv40–7.
 
17.
Thomson G, Wilson N, Weerasekera D, et al. Strong smoker interest in 'setting example to children' by quitting: national survey data. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2010;35:81–4.
 
18.
Wakefield M, Chaloupka F. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control. 2000;9:177–86.
 
eISSN:1617-9625