IntroductionSmoke-free enclosed public environments are effective in reducing exposure to secondhand smoke and yield major public health benefits. Building on this, many countries are now implementing smoke-free policies regulating smoking beyond enclosed public places and workplaces. In order to successfully implement such ‘novel smoke-free policies’, public support is essential. We aim to provide the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assessing levels and determinants of public support for novel smoke-free policies.Methods and analysisThe primary objective of this review is to summarise the level of public support for novel smoke-free policies. Eight online databases (Embase.com, Medline ALL Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, WHO Library Database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scientific Online Library Online, PsychINFO and Google Scholar) will be searched from 1 January 2004 by two independent researchers with no language restrictions. The initial search was performed on 15 April 2020 and will be updated prior to finalisation of the report. Studies are eligible if assessing support for novel smoke-free policies in the general population (age ≥16 years) and have a sample size of n≥400. Studies funded by the tobacco industry or evaluating support among groups with vested interest are excluded. The primary outcome is proportion of public support for smoke-free policies, subdivided according to the spaces covered: (1) indoor private spaces (eg, cars) (2) indoor semiprivate spaces (eg, multi-unit housing) (3) outdoor (semi)private spaces (eg, courtyards) (4) non-hospitality outdoor public spaces (eg, parks, hospital grounds, playgrounds) and (5) hospitality outdoor public spaces (eg, restaurant terraces). The secondary objective is to identify determinants associated with public support on three levels: (1) within-study determinants (eg, smoking status) (2) between-study determinants (eg, survey year) and (3) context-specific determinants (eg, social norms). Risk of bias will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and a sensitivity analysis will be performed excluding studies at high risk of bias.Ethics and disseminationNo formal ethical approval is required. Findings will be disseminated to academics, policymakers and the general public.

BackgroundSmoking is the primary preventable risk factor for disease and premature mortality. It is highly addictive and cessation attempts are often unsuccessful. Incentive-based programmes may be an effective method to reach sustained abstinence. Individualisation of incentives based on personal characteristics yields potential to further increase the effectiveness of incentive-based programmes.MethodA randomised controlled trial among healthcare workers recruited through their employer and signed up for a group-based smoking cessation programme. The intervention under study is the provision of personalised incentives on validated smoking cessation at several time points after the smoking cessation programme. A total of 220 participants are required. Participants are randomised 1:1 into intervention (personalised incentives) or control (no incentives). All participants join the group-based programme. Incentives are provided on validated abstinence directly after the smoking cessation programme and after 3, 6 and 12 months.Incentives are provided according to four schemes:(1) Standard: total reward size €350, pay-out scheme: €50 (t=0), €50 (t=3 months), €50 (t=6 months) and €200 (t=12 months), (2) descending: total reward size €300, pay-out scheme: €150, €100, €50 and €0, (3) ascending: total reward size: €400, pay-out scheme: €0, €0, €50 and €350 and (4) deposit: total reward size €450, pay-out scheme: €50, €50, €150, €200; participants pay a €100 deposit, returned conditional on abstinence after 6 months.Advice on which incentive scheme suits participants best is based on willingness to provide a deposit, readiness to quit, nicotine dependency and long-term or short-term reward preference. Participants are free to deviate from this advice. Abstinence is validated at each time point, with 15 months of total follow-up. The primary end point is validated abstinence at 12 months. Effectiveness will be determined by intention-to-treat analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe Erasmus MC Medical Ethics Committee decided that according to the Dutch Human Research Law (WMO), the protocol required no formal ethical approval. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and communicated to the participants.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Register NL7711.

INTRODUCTION Addressing smokers who smoke in a voluntary smoke-free area is vital to its successful implementation. Many people perceive barriers in addressing smokers due to fear of negative responses. Insights in actual responses are currently lacking. METHODS This is an observational field study at the voluntary smoke-free zone surrounding the Erasmus MC and two schools in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. In the first month after implementing the zone, Erasmus MC representatives performed rounds to address smokers who were smoking inside the zone. Four people observed addressors for two weeks then they also addressed the smokers. Smokers were classified as employees, patients, students, or other. We noted whether smokers were addressed directly or indirectly, and their verbal and behavioral responses to being addressed. Differences between the responses of the groups were assessed using chi-squared tests. RESULTS In all, 331 smokers were observed of whom 73% were addressed directly. Most verbal reactions were positive (46%) or neutral (18%). Employees were more likely to respond guiltily, whereas patients more often responded angrily than the others. After being addressed, the majority of smokers either extinguished their cigarette (41%) or left to continue smoking outside the smoke-free zone (34%). CONCLUSIONS Most smokers showed a positive or neutral response when being addressed about smoking inside the smoke-free zone and the majority adapted their behavior to comply with the policy. These findings may help decrease barriers for those in doubt about addressing smokers that fail to comply with a smoke-free policy.