Analytic Framework [PDF – 135 KB]
When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.
The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).
Altman DG, Rasenick-Douss L, Foster V, Tye JB. Sustained effects of an educational program to reduce sales of cigarettes to minors. Am J Public Health 1991;81(7):891–3.
Altman DG, Wheelis AY, McFarlane M, Lee H, Fortmann SP. The relationship between tobacco access and use among adolescents: a four community study. Soc Sci Med 1999;48(6):759–75.
Biglan A, Ary DV, Smolkowski K, Duncan T, Black C. A randomised controlled trial of a community intervention to prevent adolescent tobacco use. Tob Control 2000;9(1):24 –32.
Chapman S, King M, Andrews B, McKay E, Markham P, Woodward S. Effects of publicity and a warning letter on illegal cigarette sales to minors. Aust J Public Health 1994;18(1):39– 42.
Feighery E, Altman DG, Shaffer G. The effects of combining education and enforcement to reduce tobacco sales to minors. A study of four northern California communities. JAMA 1991;266(22):3168–71.
Forster JL, Murray DM, Wolfson M, Blaine TM, Wagenaar AC, Hennrikus DJ. The effects of community policies to reduce youth access to tobacco. Am J Public Health 1998;88(8):1193–8.
Jason LA, Billows WD, Schnopp-Wyatt DL, King C. Long term findings from Woodridge in reducing illegal cigarette sale to older minors. Eval Health Prof 1996;19(1):3–13.
Junck E, Humphries J, Rissel C. Reducing tobacco sales to minors in Manly: 10 months follow-up. Health Promot J Aust 1997;70:29–34.
Wildey MB, Woodruff SI, Pampalone SZ, Conway TL. Self-service sale of tobacco: how it contributes to youth access. Tob Control 1995;4:355–61.
Additional Evidence about the Included Studies
Altman DG, Foster V, Rasenick-Douss L, Tye JB. Reducing the illegal sale of cigarettes to minors. JAMA 1989;261(1):80–3.
Biglan A, Ary DV, Koehn V, et al. Mobilizing positive reinforcement in communities to reduce youth access to tobacco. Am J Community Psychol 1996;24(5):625–38.
Biglan A, Henderson J, Humphrey D. Mobilising positive reinforcement to reduce youth access to tobacco. Tob Control 1995;4:42–8.
Erickson AD, Woodruff SI, Wildey MB, Kenney E. A baseline assessment of cigarette sales to minors in San Diego, California. J Community Health 1993;18(4):213–24.
Jason LA, Ji PY, Anes MD, Birkhead SH. Active enforcement of cigarette control laws in the prevention of cigarette sales to minors [see comments]. JAMA 1991;266(22): 3159–61.
Jason LA, Katz R, Vavra J, Schnopp-Wyatt DL, Talbot B. Long-term follow-up of youth access to tobacco laws’ impact on smoking prevalence. J Hum Behav Soc Environ 1999;2(3):1–13.
Keay KD, Woodruff SI, Wildey MB, Kenney EM. Effect of retailer intervention on cigarette sales to minors in San Diego County, California. Tob Control 1993;2:145–51.
DiFranza JR, Peck RM, Radecki TE, Savageau JA. What is the potential cost-effectiveness of enforcing a prohibition on the sale of tobacco to minors? Prev Med 2001;32(2):168–74.
Electronic searches for literature were conducted in Medline, EconLit, and the database of the Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) in the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The review team also reviewed the references listed in all retrieved articles and consulted with subject-matter experts. All studies were published in journals. To be considered for inclusion in the review of study quality, a study had to meet the following criteria:
- Have a publication date of 1980 to January 2001
- Be a primary study rather than, for example, a guideline or review
- Take place in an established market economy a
- Be written in English
- Meet the team’s definition of the interventions
- Provide information on one or more outcomes identified in the intervention analytic framework
- Compare a group of people who had been exposed to the intervention(s) with a group of people who had not been exposed or who had been less exposed (comparisons could be concurrent or within a group over a period of time)
Initial database searches (January 1998 and August 1999) were supplemented by a focused search conducted in September 2000. Studies added after September 2000 were referred by members of the team or identified in the reference lists of retrieved articles.
a Established Market Economies as defined by the World Bank are: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Channel Islands, Denmark, Faeroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Greenland, Holy See, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, St. Pierre and Miquelon, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.