CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Public Health Policies and EducationGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyHealth Policy Implementation Science

The scientific basis for law as a public health tool

Open access
Moulton, Anthony D., Mercer, Shawna L., Popovic, Tanja, Briss, Peter A., Goodman, Richard A., Thombley, Melisa L., Hahn, Robert A., Fox, Daniel M.·2009·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.2007.130278PMC PMC2636607
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Systematic reviews are generating valuable scientific knowledge about the impact of public health laws, but this knowledge is not readily accessible to policy makers. We identified 65 systematic reviews of studies on the effectiveness of 52 public health laws: 27 of those laws were found effective, 23 had insufficient evidence to judge effectiveness, 1 was harmful, and 1 was found to be ineffective. This is a valuable, scientific foundation—that uses the highest relevant standard of evidence—for the role of law as a public health tool. Additional primary studies and systematic reviews are needed to address significant gaps in knowledge about the laws’ public health impact, as are energetic, sustained initiatives to make the findings available to public policy makers.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A survey of 65 systematic reviews covering 52 interventional public health laws found that 27 (52%) were effective, 23 (44%) had insufficient evidence, 1 was harmful, and 1 was ineffective, arguing that law has a substantial scientific evidence base as a public health tool. The authors call for more primary studies, more systematic reviews, and sustained efforts to make findings accessible to policy makers.

Key findings

  • Of 52 interventional public health laws addressed in 65 systematic reviews, 27 (52%) were found effective, 23 (44%) had insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness, 1 (2%) was harmful (transfer of juveniles to adult corrections facilities), and 1 (2%) was ineffective.
  • By source: the Community Guide published recommendations on 148 interventions, 38 law-related (18 effective, 1 harmful, 19 insufficient); Cochrane located 51 public health reviews, 8 law-focused (5 effective, 1 ineffective, 2 insufficient); the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination had 19 public health reviews, 3 law-focused (all effective); Health-Evidence had 835 reviews, 14 relevant (12 effective, 2 insufficient); PubMed meta-analyses yielded 2, both effective.
  • Some reviews quantified effects: one Community Guide review concluded 0.08% blood alcohol content laws produced a 7% reduction in drunk-driving deaths; a Cochrane review of tobacco sales-to-minors laws concluded "legislation alone is not sufficient to prevent sales to minors."
  • Of 422 Community Guide recommendations for future research as of February 2007, 105 (one quarter) concerned interventional public health laws; 88 of those 105 related to the leading underlying causes of preventable mortality.

Methods

  • Design: a survey (not a systematic review) of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of peer-reviewed primary studies of interventional public health laws, defined as constitutional or statutory measures, regulations, rules, ordinances, or other official policies adopted by a government body to improve population health through preventive interventions; mental health was excluded.
  • Two-part search: (1) Internet searches identifying 19 organizations sponsoring or publishing public health systematic reviews, with review of their printed and electronic publications for reviews published before June 2007 (searches beginning in the early 1990s); (2) a PubMed sensitivity search in May–June 2007 using "systematic reviews," "meta-analysis," and "prevention," limited to English, last 5 years, review, human.
  • Analysis: two authors conducted independent searches and reconciled scoring of findings; results were categorized using an adaptation of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services classification (strong/sufficient evidence of effectiveness, insufficient evidence, sufficient/strong evidence of ineffectiveness or harm), merged into "effective," "harmful," and "insufficient evidence."

Limitations

  • Stated: the survey is not a systematic review and was not designed to maximize sensitivity, though the authors believe they located most published reviews; reviews spanned nearly a decade and some may need updating; findings on the studied interventions cannot be assumed to represent the universe of public health laws; systematic review methods continue to evolve; findings may be subject to publication bias; most included studies came from English common law systems, leaving civil/Roman and other legal traditions unexamined.
  • Evident from the text: the PubMed search reviewed only the 1000 most recent of 5101 citations (November 2006–May 2007) and stopped after finding none relevant, so earlier citations were not screened; the authors also note that many reviews examined effectiveness without probing mechanisms, and that large domains (e.g., HIV/AIDS, diabetes, occupational health, illegal drugs, toxic agents) had no or only partial review coverage.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2007.130278

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 19 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    No systematic reviews of primary studies on infrastructural public health laws were found.

    “We found no systematic reviews of primary studies on infrastructural public health laws.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    Two systematic reviews (on tenant-based rental assistance programs and mixed-income housing developments) belonged to the class of laws adopted for reasons nominally unrelated to public health that may have important implications for the public's health.

    “Two (on tenant-based rental assistance programs and mixed-income housing developments) belonged to the class of laws adopted for reasons nominally unrelated to public health that, nonetheless, may have important implications for the public's health.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingnone given
    § DISCUSSION

    Many of the systematic reviews located examined the effectiveness of laws without probing the mechanisms through which they operate.

    “Many of the systematic reviews that we located examined the effectiveness of laws without probing the mechanisms through which they operate”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    88 of the Community Guide's total of 105 recommendations for research on interventional public health laws focus on the 9 leading causes of death.

    “88 of the Community Guide's total of 105 recommendations for research on interventional public health laws focus on these causes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingreasoning
    § Conclusions

    Some public health laws have effectiveness that cannot be determined at present for lack of sufficient evidence.

    “the public health laws, the effectiveness of which cannot be determined at present for lack of sufficient evidence”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 17
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    Review of citations from similar searches for relevant meta-analyses identified only 2 focused on interventional public health laws; both laws were found effective.

    “Review of all the citations identified through similar searches for relevant meta-analyses identified only 2 focused on interventional public health laws; both laws were found to be effective.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    The survey identified 65 systematic reviews of studies on the effectiveness of 52 public health laws: 27 laws were found effective, 23 had insufficient evidence to judge effectiveness, 1 was harmful, and 1 was found ineffective.

    “We identified 65 systematic reviews of studies on the effectiveness of 52 public health laws: 27 of those laws were found effective, 23 had insufficient evidence to judge effectiveness, 1 was harmful, and 1 was found to be ineffective.”
    • Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
      “Of the 52 interventional public health laws addressed in these 65 studies, a majority (n = 27, or 52%) were determined to have positive public health effects (i.e., to be effective), 1 (2%) was found to be harmful, 1 was found to be ineffective, and insufficient evidence was found to determine the effectiveness of 23 (44%).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    A PubMed search provided citations of 5101 articles; review of the 1000 most recently published citations identified none related to public health law.

    “In the second part of our search strategy, a PubMed search provided citations of 5101 articles. We reviewed the titles of the 1000 most recently published citations (those published between November 2006 and May 2007) and identified none related to public health law.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation
    § RESULTS

    The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination had published 19 systematic reviews of public health interventions by May 2007, of which 3 focused on interventional public health laws; all 3 were determined to be effective.

    “The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, sponsored by the UK National Health Service and based at the University of York, had published 19 systematic reviews of public health interventions by May 2007, of which 3 focused on interventional public health laws. All 3 were determined to be effective.9”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [9] The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd. Accessed July 1, 2007.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    The authors identified recommendations contained in the located systematic reviews for future research on interventional public health laws.

    “In addition, we identified recommendations contained in those reviews for future research on interventional public health laws.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    The Health-Evidence database review located 14 relevant systematic reviews of interventional public health laws; 12 of the studied interventions were found effective, and insufficient evidence existed to determine the effectiveness of 2.

    “We located 14 relevant systematic reviews (none duplicated systematic reviews located elsewhere). Twelve of the studied interventions were found to be effective; insufficient evidence existed to determine the effectiveness of 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    The Cochrane review located 51 systematic reviews of primary studies of public health interventions; 8 focused on interventional public health laws, of which 5 were found effective, 1 was found ineffective, and 2 lacked sufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.

    “We reviewed the titles of all the located 51 systematic reviews of primary studies of public health interventions: 8 focused on interventional public health laws, of which 5 were found to be effective; 1 was found to be ineffective; and 2 lacked sufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    Many of the systematic reviews located went beyond simple yes or no findings to estimate the magnitude of their effects.

    “Many of the systematic reviews that we located went beyond simple yes or no findings to estimate the magnitude of their effects.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § RESULTS

    The Community Guide's recommendations for future research on interventional public health laws were for research in tobacco control, vaccination, physical activity, motor vehicle injury, oral health, housing, and juvenile justice.

    “These recommendations were for research in the fields of tobacco control, vaccination, physical activity, motor vehicle injury, oral health, housing, and juvenile justice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § RESULTS

    Relatively few Cochrane or other reviews appear to include recommendations for future research.

    “By contrast, relatively few Cochrane or other reviews appear to include such recommendations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § DISCUSSION

    Most of those studies were of public health laws in North America, Western Europe, and Australia.

    “Most of those studies were of public health laws in North America, Western Europe, and Australia.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    Toxic agents and illegal drugs appear to have been the focus of no systematic reviews of interventional public health laws.

    “Two of the 9 underlying causes—toxic agents and illegal drugs—appear to have been the focus of no systematic reviews”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § DISCUSSION

    The Community Guide has urged that research be conducted on interventional public health laws related to 5 of the leading underlying causes of death: tobacco use, poor diet and physical inactivity, alcohol consumption, microbial agents, and motor vehicle injury.

    “In its recommendations, the Community Guide has urged that research be conducted on interventional public health laws related to 5 of the leading underlying causes of death: tobacco use, poor diet and physical inactivity, alcohol consumption, microbial agents, and motor vehicle injury.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    The systematic reviews located were published over a period of nearly a decade.

    “the systematic reviews that we located were published over a period of nearly a decade”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data
    § DISCUSSION

    Public health emergencies, cancer not related to tobacco or skin cancer, diabetes, unsafe water, HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, use of illegal drugs, unintentional injuries not related to motor vehicles, bicycles, or pool drownings, intentional injuries not related to firearms, reproductive health, and occupational health appear not to have been the subject of systematic reviews of inter

    “Among the threats and risk factors that appear not to have been the subject of such systematic reviews to date are public health emergencies (e.g., disease pandemics and natural disasters); cancer not related to tobacco or to skin cancer; diabetes; unsafe water; HIV/AIDS; sexually transmitted diseases; use of illegal drugs; unintentional injuries not related to motor vehicles, bicycles, or pool”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Law is a traditional public health tool that has made vital contributions to major public health achievements of the 20th century, including school immunization laws that helped reduce infectious disease and tobacco control laws that helped reduce chronic disease.

    “Law is a traditional public health tool that has made vital contributions to the major public health achievements of the 20th century. Examples include school immunization laws that helped reduce the rates of infectious disease and tobacco control laws that helped reduce the rates of chronic disease.1”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] Goodman RA, Moulton A, Matthews G, et al. Law and public health at CDC. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2006;55(suppl 2):29–33 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    Systematic reviews and meta-analyses apply the most sophisticated methodologies currently available to assess the findings of multiple primary studies focused on a given intervention.

    “Systematic reviews and meta-analyses apply the most sophisticated methodologies currently available to assess the findings of multiple primary studies focused on a given intervention.3”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3] Fox DM. Evidence of evidence-based health policy: the politics of systematic reviews in coverage decisions. Health Aff 2005;24:114–122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § METHODS

    Two authors conducted independent searches for relevant systematic reviews, compiled the located reviews, and reconciled their independent scoring of findings based on consensus reading of the reviewers' findings.

    “A. D. M and M. I. T. conducted independent searches for relevant systematic reviews, compiled the reviews so located, and reconciled our independent scoring of the findings (as effective, ineffective or harmful, or lacking sufficient evidence of effectiveness) based on our consensus reading of the reviewers’ findings.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data
    § Abstract

    The identified systematic reviews constitute a valuable scientific foundation, using the highest relevant standard of evidence, for the role of law as a public health tool.

    “This is a valuable, scientific foundation—that uses the highest relevant standard of evidence—for the role of law as a public health tool.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Abstract

    The number of peer-reviewed publications reporting on the impact of interventional public health laws is growing, as is the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such primary studies.

    “The number of peer-reviewed publications reporting on the impact of interventional public health laws is growing, as is the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of such primary studies.2”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Law Program Bibliography of selected publications in public health law. Available at: http//www2.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/PHLPARTICLEBIBLIOGRAPHY.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2007 [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusions

    Much remains to be done to address large gaps through more primary studies of the effectiveness of public health laws, systematic reviews of those studies, and initiatives to make the results available to public policy makers.

    “Much remains to be done, however, to address large gaps through more primary studies of the effectiveness of public health laws, systematic reviews of those studies, and initiatives to make the results available to public policy makers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    A study on the effect of higher cigarette prices on smoker behavior found that 3 economic factors undercut the expected reduction in smoking: manufacturers increased supply of discount or generic cigarettes and discount coupons, tax-exempt retailers expanded sales, and smokers shifted to generic and other cheaper cigarettes.

    “a recent study on the effect of higher cigarette prices on smoker behavior found that 3 economic factors undercut the expected reduction in smoking: manufacturers increased the supply of discount or generic cigarettes and of discount coupons, tax-exempt retailers—such as American Indian–owned businesses—expanded sales, and smokers shifted to generic and other cheaper cigarettes.18”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Hyland A, Bauer JE, Li Q, Higbee C, Peppone L, Cummings KM. Higher cigarette prices influence cigarette purchase pattern. Tob Control 2007;14:86–92 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    Gostin offers a taxonomy of mechanisms including incentives through taxation and spending; changes in the informational environment; changes in the built environment; direct regulation of individuals, professionals, and businesses; and indirect regulation through tort litigation.

    “Gostin offers another taxonomy of mechanisms, including incentives through taxation and spending; changes in the “informational environment”; changes in the “built environment”; “direct regulation” of individuals, professionals, and businesses; and “indirect regulation” through tort litigation.15”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [15] Gostin LO, Thompson FE, Grad FP. The law and the public's health: the foundations. : Goodman RA, Law in Public Health Practice 1st ed.New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2007:25 [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    A Cochrane systematic review concluded that legislation alone is not sufficient to prevent tobacco sales to minors.

    “concluded that “Legislation alone is not sufficient to prevent sales to minors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Stead LF, Lancaster T. Interventions for preventing tobacco sales to minors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;1:CD001497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    Mensah et al. list 7 broad types of behavioral influences that flow from public health laws.

    “Mensah et al. list 7 broad types of behavioral influences that flow from public health laws.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Mensah G, Goodman RA, Zaza S, et al. Law as a tool for preventing chronic diseases: expanding the range of effective public health strategies. Prev Chronic Dis [serial online]. 2004 Jan. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2004/jan/03_0033.htm. Accessed July 1, 2007 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    Mokdad et al. have presented the 9 leading actual or underlying causes of death in the United States.

    “Mokdad et al. have presented the 9 leading “actual” or “underlying” causes of death in the United States,12 as shown in Table 3”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [12] Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JG. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000 [published correction appears in J Am Med Assoc. 2005;203:293–294] J Am Med Assoc 2004;291:1238–1245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    A Community Guide systematic review concluded that adoption of 0.08% blood alcohol content laws resulted in a 7% reduction in drunk-driving deaths.

    “one Community Guide systematic review concluded that adoption of 0.08% blood alcohol content laws resulted in a 7% reduction in drunk-driving deaths.6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Task Force on Community Preventive Services The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005 [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § DISCUSSION

    The survey is not a systematic review and was not designed to maximize sensitivity to identify every possible systematic review of primary studies of the effectiveness of interventional public health laws.

    “our survey is not a systematic review, and was not designed to maximize sensitivity (i.e., to identify every possible systematic review of primary studies of the effectiveness of interventional public health laws)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    The Community Guide reviews interventions in various public health domains in a purposive manner, with criteria such as the perceived preventable burden of a given health condition.

    “The Community Guide, under the direction of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, reviews interventions in various public health domains in a purposive manner, with such criteria as the perceived preventable burden of a given health condition.6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] Task Force on Community Preventive Services The Guide to Community Preventive Services: What Works to Promote Health? New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005 [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    Factors responsible for the failure of the vaccination mandate included failure of hospitals to adopt standing orders, absence of enforcement mechanisms, and physician opposition.

    “Among the responsible factors identified were the failure of hospitals to adopt standing orders to implement the mandate, the absence of enforcement mechanisms, and physician opposition to the mandate.17”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Hempstead K, Bresnitz E, Howell-White S, Crabtree D, Rosato NS. Use of a state regulation for adult vaccination. Am J Prev Med 2004;26:311–314 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    A Cochrane systematic review concluded that both enforcement and community policies improve compliance by retailers in preventing tobacco sales to minors.

    “Both enforcement and community policies improve compliance by retailers.”11(p9)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [11] Stead LF, Lancaster T. Interventions for preventing tobacco sales to minors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;1:CD001497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § DISCUSSION

    The findings of effectiveness of the 46 studied interventions cannot be assumed to represent the universe of interventional public health laws, many of which appear not to have been the subject of systematic reviews.

    “the findings of effectiveness of the 46 studied interventions cannot be assumed to represent the universe of interventional public health laws, many of which appear not to have been the subject of systematic reviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § DISCUSSION

    The prevailing approaches employed in systematic reviews continue to evolve, responding in part to critiques of methods and of the quality of the primary studies that they treat.

    “the prevailing approaches employed in systematic reviews continue to evolve, responding, in part, to critiques of methods and of the quality of the primary studies that they treat.19”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19] Asthana S, Halliday J. Developing an evidence base for policies and interventions to address health inequalities: the analysis of “public health regimes”. Milbank Q 2006;84:577–603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § DISCUSSION

    Some of the systematic reviews located could require updating to encompass newly published primary studies.

    “some could require updating to encompass newly published primary studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation
    § DISCUSSION

    Our findings may be subject to publication bias.

    “our findings may be subject to publication bias”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Petitti DB. Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. 2nd ed.New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000 [Google Scholar]

      Not checked in the free run.

35 of 35

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The body of scientific knowledge about the impact of public health laws has not been summarized and made readily accessible to policy makers.

    “However, this body of scientific knowledge, although potentially of great value, to date has not been summarized and made readily accessible to policy makers.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Policy makers need the findings of systematic reviews on public health law effectiveness to be summarized and made readily accessible.

    “Systematic reviews are generating valuable scientific knowledge about the impact of public health laws, but this knowledge is not readily accessible to policy makers.”
    “We begin to address this gap.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The authors located most of the published systematic reviews of primary studies of the effectiveness of interventional public health laws.

    “although we believe that we located most of those published.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Community Guide and Cochrane standards of scientific evidence are widely accepted and rigorous.

    “even when held up against widely accepted, rigorous standards of scientific evidence.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Table 3 counts an effective Cochrane tobacco law absent from Table 2

    Minor

    Table 3 reports one effective Cochrane tobacco-law finding. Table 2 lists the Cochrane tobacco-law finding as ineffective, with no effective Cochrane tobacco-law finding shown.

  • Paper includes laws it says were excluded

    Minor

    The introduction excludes laws not designed principally for public health objectives. The discussion says two laws in the survey belonged to that class.

  • Merging two of five categories cannot leave three

    Minor

    The methods list five evidence categories. Merging the first two leaves four, not the three stated; the resulting list also omits the ineffectiveness category used elsewhere in the paper.

  • Limitations give a different count of studied interventions

    Minor

    The results identify 52 interventional public health laws addressed by the survey, whereas the limitations refer to 46 studied interventions without identifying a narrower group.

  • Community Guide effective-law count differs

    Minor

    The results say the Community Guide found 18 interventional public health laws effective, but the discussion says it identified 20.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Goodman RA, 2006, MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 55, 29
  2. Stead LF, 2005, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1, CD001497
  3. Mensah G, Prev Chronic Dis

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moulton, A. D., Mercer, S. L., Popovic, T., Briss, P. A., Goodman, R. A., Thombley, M. L., Hahn, R. A., & Fox, D. M.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Anthony D. Moulton, Richard A. Goodman, and Melisa L. Thombley are with the Public Health Law Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA. Shawna L. Mercer and Robert A. Hahn are with the Guide to Community Preventive Services, CDC, Atlanta. Tanja Popovic is with the Office of the Director, CDC, Atlanta. Peter A. Briss is with the Coordinating Center for Environmental Health and Injury Prevention, CDC, Atlanta. Daniel M. Fox is with the Milbank Memorial Fund, New York, NY.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2009-01
Volume
99
Issue
1
Pages
17-24
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.2007.130278
PMC
PMC2636607
OpenAlex
W2140777086
Semantic Scholar
1ce93de6c38f8b91278e43d10a27b1cc6b5c4922
Cited by
56
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
8.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Chicago
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • Institut pour la Recherche en Santé Publique
  • Health Canada
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
public health law, systematic reviews, evidence-based policy, public health impact, research gaps
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Health Policy, Humans, Public Health, Public Health Practice, Government Regulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review