Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01.12.2015 | Research article

Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies

verfasst von: Steven J. Hoffman, Charlie Tan

Erschienen in: BMC Public Health | Ausgabe 1/2015

Abstract

Background

Government interventions are critical to addressing the global tobacco epidemic, a major public health problem that continues to deepen. We systematically synthesize research evidence on the effectiveness of government tobacco control policies promoted by the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), supporting the implementation of this international treaty on the tenth anniversary of it entering into force.

Methods

An overview of systematic reviews was prepared through systematic searches of five electronic databases, published up to March 2014. Additional reviews were retrieved from monthly updates until August 2014, consultations with tobacco control experts and a targeted search for reviews on mass media interventions. Reviews were assessed according to predefined inclusion criteria, and ratings of methodological quality were either extracted from source databases or independently scored.

Results

Of 612 reviews retrieved, 45 reviews met the inclusion criteria and 14 more were identified from monthly updates, expert consultations and a targeted search, resulting in 59 included reviews summarizing over 1150 primary studies. The 38 strong and moderate quality reviews published since 2000 were prioritized in the qualitative synthesis. Protecting people from tobacco smoke was the most strongly supported government intervention, with smoke-free policies associated with decreased smoking behaviour, secondhand smoke exposure and adverse health outcomes. Raising taxes on tobacco products also consistently demonstrated reductions in smoking behaviour. Tobacco product packaging interventions and anti-tobacco mass media campaigns may decrease smoking behaviour, with the latter likely an important part of larger multicomponent programs. Financial interventions for smoking cessation are most effective when targeted at smokers to reduce the cost of cessation products, but incentivizing quitting may be effective as well. Although the findings for bans on tobacco advertising were inconclusive, other evidence suggests they remain an important intervention.

Conclusion

When designing and implementing tobacco control programs, governments should prioritize smoking bans and price increases of tobacco products followed by other interventions. Additional studies are needed on the various factors that can influence a policy’s effectiveness and feasibility such as cost, local context, political barriers and implementation strategies.
Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12889-015-2041-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

SJH conceived of the study, led its methodological design and co-wrote the manuscript. CT led implementation of the study’s methodology and co-wrote the manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to this work. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript and take responsibility for the integrity of the findings.

Background

The global tobacco epidemic is a major public health problem that continues to deepen, with nearly 1 billion smokers worldwide in 2012 [1]. It is the leading cause of preventable death, resulting in approximately 6 million unnecessary deaths per year [2, 3]. Cigarettes will kill half their current users through conditions such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory conditions and cancers, and mortality from smoking is expected to increase to an estimated 8 million people per year by 2030 [3]. Secondhand smoke (SHS) is a significant concern as well: more than 600,000 of the total annual deaths from smoking are due to SHS exposure [2].
The year 2015 marks the tenth anniversary since the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) came into force, the first international treaty specially adopted through WHO. This instrument aims to reduce tobacco consumption and protect all people from tobacco exposure through provisions that direct countries to implement tobacco control programs [4]. To guide countries in this process, WHO introduced the six MPOWER measures (Table 1), each of which corresponds to one or more FCTC provisions [5]. The 180 parties to the FCTC (as of May 2015) are all mandated to take action [6]. However, the bi-annual reports that ratifying countries must submit show uneven progress [7].
Table 1
MPOWER measures
MPOWER measure
Description
Monitor tobacco use and prevention policies
Surveillance of the prevalence, determinants and impacts of tobacco use, and measuring the effects of tobacco control interventions (FCTC Article 20)
Protect people from tobacco smoke
Reduce secondhand smoke exposure through comprehensive smoke-free legislation in public spaces, including all indoor workplaces (FCTC Article 8)
Offer help to quit tobacco use
Cessation support through advice from healthcare providers, telephone quit lines and easily-accessible or low cost medications (FCTC Article 14)
Warn about the dangers of tobacco
Warnings on tobacco packaging and anti-tobacco media campaigns to promote awareness on the health consequences of smoking (FCTC Article 11 and Article 12)
Enforce bans on tobacco advertising and sponsorship
Bans on direct (e.g., television advertisements, billboards) and indirect (e.g., industry-sponsored events) marketing of tobacco products (FCTC Article 13)
Raise taxes on tobacco
Increasing the price of tobacco products through taxation (FCTC Article 6)
The aim of this systematic overview of systematic reviews is to take stock of the global research evidence base in this decennial year about the likely health effects of different government tobacco control policies. This provides policymakers with an evidence-based resource to help with policy deliberations and decision-making on setting priorities for national FCTC implementation [8]. Systematic reviews aim to identify, assess and synthesize all available primary evidence on a research question, and use an objective, optimized and structured methodology to maximize transparency and minimize bias. Overviews of systematic reviews build on the strengths of individual reviews and add breadth by integrating the findings of many reviews together.

Methods

Relevant systematic reviews were identified through systematic searches of the electronic databases Health Evidence for research on public health and health promotion, Health Systems Evidence for research on health systems, Rx for Change for research on behaviour-change interventions, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for research on healthcare and health policy, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for research on healthcare and health services delivery, published up to March 2014. These databases are continuously updated and together represent the leading repositories of health-related systematic reviews. For Health Evidence, the search term “tobacco use” was entered; for other databases, “tobacco” was entered. This search strategy was designed to be very broad and capture as many systematic reviews related to tobacco use as possible. Relevant reviews in monthly updates from Health Evidence, Health Systems Evidence and the Quebec Public Health Research Network were included as well up to August 2014. Two tobacco control experts known to the authors were also consulted to identify any reviews missed by the systematic searches. An additional targeted search for systematic reviews on mass media campaigns was conducted in May 2015 in response to peer review feedback.
The present overview includes systematic reviews evaluating government tobacco control policies. Reviews that did not follow a systematic methodology and other overviews of systematic reviews were not included; the latter’s references were scanned to identify reviews for inclusion. The MPOWER components were used as an organizing framework to classify the interventions. Clinical interventions, such as pharmacologic therapy and counselling services, were not included. Reviews on multicomponent programs were excluded if the effects of individual interventions were not independently studied or could not be differentiated. Outcome measures relating to tobacco use, SHS exposure and primary health outcomes were considered. Tobacco use outcomes include smoking prevalence, quantity of cigarettes consumed, smoking cessation and smoking initiation. SHS exposure outcomes include both self-reported and biomarker-validated measures of exposure. Health outcomes include hospital admissions and risk of any adverse medical event. Measures that did not directly assess change in smokers, such as recall of media campaigns and perceptions of smoking, were not included. Reviews were not excluded on the basis of language.
Titles and abstracts were assessed to identify reviews for inclusion. The full texts were then read to confirm inclusion. The following data from selected studies were abstracted into a summary table: number of studies included, year of last search and key findings. The quality ratings given to each review by their source databases were extracted as well. Health Evidence uses an independent quality assessment tool specific for public health intervention literature [9]. Total scores can range from 0 to 10, based on which a quality rating is assigned: “strong” (8 to 10), “moderate” (5 to 7) or “weak” (4 or less). Health Systems Evidence and Rx for Change use the AMSTAR tool, which evaluates the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 11 quality criteria [1012]. Reviews with scores from 9 to 11 are rated as “high,” from 5 to 8 as “medium,” and from 0 to 4 as “low.” For this overview, the “strong,” “moderate” and “weak” terminology was used for AMSTAR to maintain consistency with Health Evidence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews does not provide ratings and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects offers a descriptive quality assessment [13]. A quality assessment was independently performed using the AMSTAR tool for reviews without a numerical quality rating. Strong and moderate quality reviews published since 2000 were prioritized in the qualitative synthesis.

Results

Six hundred and twelve reviews were identified through the search strategy. Screening titles and abstracts yielded 67 reviews that possibly met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers screened the full-text of reviews and confirmed 45 met the inclusion criteria. Any conflicts were resolved by discussion between the two reviewers and a third reviewer was consulted when required. Four additional reviews for inclusion were identified from monthly updates, nine were identified by tobacco control experts and one was identified from the targeted search for reviews on mass media campaigns. In total, 59 reviews were included that together summarized over 1150 primary studies (see Fig. 1) [1472].1 The 22 reviews excluded after full-text screening either evaluated excluded outcome measures (n = 1) [73], were overviews of systematic reviews (n = 3) [7476], did not follow a systematic methodology (n = 1) [77], only reported results of multicomponent programs (n = 4) [7881], did not adequately describe what interventions were evaluated (n = 2) [82, 83], or were not relevant for assessing government tobacco control policies (n = 11) [8494]. Findings from the 38 reviews that were either strong or moderate quality and published since 2000 are presented here (see Fig. 2) [1451]. A Web Appendix contains individualized summaries of these reviews as well as the lower quality and older reviews (see Additional file 1) [5272].

Protect people from tobacco smoke

Twelve reviews summarize the health-related effects of smoking bans and restrictions in public spaces, workplaces or residences. Three are strong in quality [1416], eight are moderate [1724] and one is rated as moderate by HE and as strong by HSE [25]. Overall, most of the eight reviews on smoking behaviour reported reductions in smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption and increases in smoking cessation [14, 15, 1719, 21, 24, 25]. Hopkins et al. found that workplace smoke-free policies lead to an absolute reduction in smoking prevalence of 3.4 % (interquartile range (IQR) = −6.3 to −1.4), reduced cigarette consumption by 2.2 cigarettes per day (IQR = −1.7 to −3.3), increased quit attempts by 4.1 % (IQR = −0.7 to 6.8) and increased successful cessation by 6.4 % (IQR = 2.0 to 9.7) [15]. Three reviews found inconsistent evidence for smoking prevalence or cessation, but reported improvements in other smoking behaviour outcomes [14, 18, 21]. Thomas et al. looked at the effect of smoking bans on social inequalities in smoking [19] and Kohler and Minkner reviewed the conditions under which state smoking bans are effective [24], but neither assessed their overall efficacy. Three reviews investigating SHS all reported reductions in SHS exposure with smoke-free policies, in both adults and children and across various settings including workplaces, public spaces and hospitality establishments [14, 21, 25]. Similarly, all six reviews investigating primary health outcomes found decreases in adverse events [16, 2023, 25]. Tan and Glantz looked at hospital admissions data and found a reduced risk of admission for coronary events (relative risk (RR) = 0.85, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 0.82 to 0.88), other heart diseases (RR = 0.61, 95 % CI = 0.44 to 0.85), cerebrovascular accidents (RR = 0.81, 95 % CI = 0.70 to 0.94) and respiratory diseases (RR = 0.76, 95 % CI = 0.68 to 0.85) with smoke-free policies [22]. The reductions were greatest with comprehensive policies that banned smoking in workplaces, restaurants and bars. Therefore, there is very strong evidence that smoke-free legislation reduces smoking behaviour, exposure to SHS and adverse health outcomes.

Offer help to quit tobacco use

Twelve reviews present research evidence on the effect of financial assistance or incentives for smokers to quit smoking and for healthcare professionals to provide smoking cessation interventions.2 Eight are strong in quality [14, 2632] and four are moderate [3336]. Financial interventions appear to have different effects depending on whether they are incentives to quit smoking or assistance to lower the cost of cessation therapies, and whether they target smokers or healthcare providers. Two reviews investigated smoker-directed financial assistance and found increased uptake of cessation therapies and greater levels of smoking cessation [14, 28]. The effect of incentives and competitions for smokers is less clear, with four reviews reporting increased cessation [3032, 35] and four reviews finding an unclear or no effect [26, 27, 29, 33]. Giles et al. [31] and Cahill and Lancaster [32] found that smokers offered incentives were 2.48 times (95 % CI = 1.77 to 3.46) and 1.60 times (95 % CI = 1.12 to 2.30) more likely to quit smoking, respectively. In pregnant women, Likis et al. reported that financial incentives increased smoking cessation and were the most important component of multicomponent programs that promote cessation [30]. Conversely, Cahill and Perera found no effect of incentives on long-term quit rates [27], and a separate review by the same authors estimated that community “quit-and-win” contests lead to fewer than one in 500 smokers quitting smoking [26]. The three reviews that looked at provider-directed financial interventions found no effect on smoking abstinence and prevalence in patients [28, 34, 36]. Financial interventions may thus be more effective for smoking cessation when they are targeted to make cessation therapies more affordable, but incentivizing quitting may be effective as well. They do not appear to influence smoking behaviour when directed at healthcare professionals.

Warn about the dangers of tobacco

Three reviews contained evidence on the effects of health warning labels or plain packaging on tobacco products. All three are moderate in quality [19, 21, 37]. Two reviews found health warning labels decrease smoking behaviour, reporting reductions in tobacco use and increases in motivation to quit, quitting likelihood and likelihood of abstinence after quitting [21, 37]. Thomas et al. found no effect [19]. Among seven reviews assessing mass media campaigns, four are strong in quality [14, 3840] and three are moderate [21, 41, 42]. Five reviews looked at media campaigns as part of comprehensive tobacco control programs and four reported reductions in smoking behaviour [14, 21, 38, 41]. Bala et al. showed inconsistent effects and raised concerns about the quality of the evidence [40]. An update to this review found strong evidence that mass media campaigns, within the context of multicomponent programs, promote cessation and reduce smoking prevalence [41]. This updated review identified several features of effective campaigns: wide population reach, high intensity, long duration, use of television and messages on the negative health effects of smoking [41]. The remaining systematic reviews focused on mass media campaigns in subpopulations. Guillaumier et al. found insufficient evidence for their effect on smokers of low socioeconomic status [42], while Brinn et al. [39] reported inconsistent evidence for their effect on young people. Therefore, the evidence suggests that interventions cautioning people about tobacco’s harms may be effective strategies, with mass media campaigns being potentially important parts of multicomponent programs.

Enforce bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship

Four reviews present research evidence on the health-related effects of tobacco advertising bans and restrictions, all of which are moderate in quality [19, 21, 43, 44]. None of the reviews found clear reductions in smoking behaviour, with Quentin et al. reporting inconsistent effects [43] and Capella et al. showing no reduction in cigarette consumption [44]. Although Mozaffarian et al. did not report any direct effects, this review postulated that advertising restrictions should decrease smoking behaviour based on the well-established association between advertisements and tobacco use [21]. Indeed, individual studies have demonstrated that tobacco marketing and cigarette use in movies alter adolescents’ attitudes and susceptibilities to smoking, which in turn places them at risk of initiating cigarette use and continuing this behaviour into adulthood [9599]. Although systematic reviews have not conclusively shown that banning tobacco marketing is an effective tobacco control measure, substantial evidence exists on the harmful consequences of unregulated advertising on smoking behaviour.
In addition, there are individual studies that support the effectiveness of these interventions. Saffer and Chaloupka looked at 22 OECD countries and showed that comprehensive advertising bans reduce tobacco consumption, but that limited advertising bans—where other avenues of promotion are still available to companies—do not reduce tobacco consumption [100]. An analogous study by Blecher that included the OECD countries as well as 30 developing countries had similar findings [101]. A sub-analysis of the developing countries showed that both comprehensive and limited bans reduced smoking in these countries, with comprehensive bans having greater effects [101]. The scope of advertising restrictions and how they are enforced may therefore be critical factors in their effectiveness.

Raise taxes on tobacco

Among the six reviews evaluating tobacco price increases, one is high in quality [14] and five are moderate [19, 21, 4547]. All but one of the reviews found that increasing the price of tobacco reduces smoking behaviour, with decreases in cigarette consumption and smoking prevalence and increases in smoking cessation. Hopkins et al. combined seven studies that estimated price elasticities of demand and found that every 10 % increase in cigarette prices decreased smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption by 3.7 and 2.3 %, respectively [14]. Price increases appear to be most effective among adolescents, young adults and persons of low socioeconomic status [19, 45, 46]. Rice et al. reported negative price elasticities for smoking participation, prevalence, consumption and initiation, and greater smoking cessation in youths with price increases [46]. However, Guindon found inconclusive results on the effect of tobacco price increases on smoking initiation [47]. Overall the evidence indicates increasing the price of tobacco products is a very important intervention for tobacco control.

Restrict sales to minors

Five reviews summarize the health-related effects of restricting youth access to tobacco products, all of which are moderate in quality [19, 4851]. This intervention is not part of MPOWER but is promoted in the FCTC under Article 16 (“prohibiting sales to and by minors”). Across the systematic reviews there was no consistent effect found for youth access interventions on smoking behaviour. Fichtenberg and Glantz showed that such restrictions do not reduce smoking prevalence among teens, even with high compliance among cigarette merchants [48]. However, DiFranza reported that banning the sale of tobacco products to minors is effective in decreasing youth smoking, but only if the restrictions are strongly enforced [51]. The three remaining reviews found inconsistent evidence [19, 49, 50]. The literature on youth access interventions is thus inconclusive; restrictions, if they are effective, appear to depend on robust enforcement.

Discussion

Principal findings

This systematic overview of systematic reviews summarizes the research evidence on the likely health-related effects of government tobacco control policies promoted in the FCTC, identifying gaps in the literature and providing a framework for policy deliberations and future research. It includes 59 systematic reviews, encompassing more than 1150 individual studies.
Among the government tobacco control policies identified, protecting people from tobacco smoke through smoking bans and price increases of tobacco products have the strongest evidence of effectiveness. Smoke-free policies were consistently associated with reductions in smoking behaviour, SHS exposure and adverse health outcomes. Their success has been demonstrated in diverse settings. Robust evidence was similarly found for raising tobacco prices, such as through taxation, with decreases in smoking behaviour found by five reviews. The cumulative evidence from this overview suggests that smoke-free policies and tobacco taxation may be the two most important interventions promoted by the FCTC and should be prioritized by governments when developing their tobacco control programs.
Positive results were also found for warning people about the dangers of tobacco through mass media campaigns and cigarette packaging interventions, with the former likely being integral parts of multicomponent programs. Financial assistance reducing the costs of smoking cessation interventions and financial incentives may be effective strategies; the effect of provider-directed interventions is less clear. Limited evidence was found for advertising restrictions, but evidence on how advertisements influence smoking behaviour, the substantial investments that cigarette companies have made to promote their products and individual studies demonstrating their effectiveness all suggest these interventions remain important. No reviews were identified for monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies, indicating a need for research syntheses on their effectiveness.
Although this overview assesses the effectiveness of individual government tobacco control policies, countries should implement comprehensive programs that contain two or more FCTC provisions and that are tailored specifically to their national situations. Such multicomponent programs are the most effective approach to tobacco control, with policies acting synergistically when enacted together [102, 103]. While greater research evidence exists for certain interventions, all tobacco control measures under the FCTC are important and should ideally be implemented concurrently. However, it is often not possible for countries to dedicate equal resources to each policy or to introduce them simultaneously. The 2014 Global Progress Report showed variability in implementation rates across FCTC provisions, with over 90 % of parties reporting to have prioritized one or more areas of the treaty over others [104]. Lack of financial, human, research and political resources were also identified as barriers to full implementation [104]. Thus, while countries would ideally implement all tobacco control policies concurrently, regulations that ban smoking and increase tobacco product prices should be prioritized in situations where resources are constrained. The other FCTC provisions can then further strengthen and work synergistically with these priority policies. This will help promote an evidence-based prioritization of policies and maximize the likelihood that limited resources will be allocated to those measures most likely to protect people from the harmful effects of tobacco.

Strengths and limitations

This overview has several methodological strengths. First, prioritizing systematic reviews allowed a huge body of research evidence to be synthesized—over 1150 studies—covering a wide variety of interventions, outcomes, conditions and populations in a single analysis. Second, a systematic and transparent search protocol was implemented, minimizing bias while ensuring that as many systematic reviews evaluating government tobacco control policies as possible were identified and assessed for inclusion. Third, the quality of each systematic review was considered, with quality ratings either extracted from source databases or independently scored. These quality ratings were then used, along with the date of publication, to prioritize included reviews, maximizing confidence in the resulting analyses as a good starting point for decision-making.
This overview also has several limitations. First, searches were restricted to the five leading databases of systematic reviews; unpublished reviews will have been missed. Furthermore, many disciplines have different approaches to literature reviews that place less emphasis on describing the search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria. As such, some excellent comprehensive reviews may have been excluded by the databases or have low quality ratings [67, 103, 105]. Second, the intricacies and details of each individual study are invariably lost when integrating findings from over 1150 primary sources. Third, evaluations of multicomponent policies were excluded, limiting this overview to summarizing the impact of interventions when used in isolation.

Future directions

Based on the cumulative evidence, the effectiveness of smoke-free policies is well established; the current evidence demonstrates smoke-free policies are critical tobacco control interventions. Tobacco price increases are also well supported by the literature, although future studies and reviews could helpfully assess outcomes other than smoking behaviour. More evaluations of the remaining interventions are important to determine their overall effectiveness and the conditions under which they are most impactful. For all interventions, studies and syntheses of the various factors that can influence their effectiveness and feasibility, such as cost, local context, political barriers and implementation strategies, are needed. The differential effect of these policies, such as by a nation’s level of development or by a population’s demographic characteristics, is also an important research gap. Studies and syntheses evaluating the synergistic effects of multicomponent programs and determining which combinations of policies are most effective would be particularly beneficial for governments in establishing or expanding evidence-based tobacco control programs. Research should also not be limited to the FCTC provisions; innovative and radical approaches, or “endgame proposals,” should be encouraged to further reduce and ultimately eliminate tobacco use [106].

Conclusion

This overview of systematic reviews provides a summary of current research evidence on the effectiveness of individual government tobacco control policies. The 180 state parties to the FCTC and other countries can use this work as a resource for policy decisions on prioritizing, designing and implementing their tobacco control programs. Based on this overview, governments should focus their efforts on enacting smoke-free legislation and taxing tobacco products. Other tobacco control policies should then be considered to build on their effectiveness and establish comprehensive programs.

Acknowledgements

SJH is financially supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Research Council of Norway, and the Trudeau Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.
We thank Emmanuel Guindon, Kaelan Moat and Shawn O’Connor for help with our search strategy and feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We thank Waleed Ahmed, Navneet Natt and Lathika Sritharan for their help with the literature search and review.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

SJH conceived of the study, led its methodological design and co-wrote the manuscript. CT led implementation of the study’s methodology and co-wrote the manuscript. Both authors contributed equally to this work. Both authors approved the final version of the manuscript and take responsibility for the integrity of the findings.
Fußnoten
1
The exact number of primary studies could not be calculated because some reviews did not report the number of studies they summarized. The estimate of 1150 primary studies is conservative.
 
2
Evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of providing telephone counselling and cessation advice from healthcare workers was not included due to the clinical context in which these interventions were implemented. This overview focuses on evidence from evaluations of government tobacco control policies.
 
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Ng M, Freeman MK, Fleming TD, Robinson M, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Thomson B, et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, 1980–2012. JAMA. 2014;311(2):183–92. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.284692. Ng M, Freeman MK, Fleming TD, Robinson M, Dwyer-Lindgren L, Thomson B, et al. Smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in 187 countries, 1980–2012. JAMA. 2014;311(2):183–92. doi:10.​1001/​jama.​2013.​284692.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Hoffman SJ, Lavis JN, Bennett S. The use of research evidence in two international organizations’ recommendations about health systems. Healthc Policy. 2009;5(1):66–86.PubMedPubMedCentral Hoffman SJ, Lavis JN, Bennett S. The use of research evidence in two international organizations’ recommendations about health systems. Healthc Policy. 2009;5(1):66–86.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Hopkins DP, Briss PA, Ricard CJ, Husten CG, Carande-Kulis VG, Fielding JE, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(2 Suppl):16–66.CrossRefPubMed Hopkins DP, Briss PA, Ricard CJ, Husten CG, Carande-Kulis VG, Fielding JE, et al. Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce tobacco use and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(2 Suppl):16–66.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Levy DT, Friend KB. The effects of clean indoor air laws: what do we know and what do we need to know? Health Educ Res. 2003;18(5):592–609.CrossRefPubMed Levy DT, Friend KB. The effects of clean indoor air laws: what do we know and what do we need to know? Health Educ Res. 2003;18(5):592–609.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Mozaffarian D, Afshin A, Benowitz NL, Bittner V, Daniels SR, Franch HA, et al. Population approaches to improve diet, physical activity, and smoking habits: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1514–63.CrossRefPubMed Mozaffarian D, Afshin A, Benowitz NL, Bittner V, Daniels SR, Franch HA, et al. Population approaches to improve diet, physical activity, and smoking habits: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1514–63.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Callinan JE, Clarke A, Doherty K, Kelleher C. Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;4:CD005992. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005992.pub2. Callinan JE, Clarke A, Doherty K, Kelleher C. Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;4:CD005992. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD005992.​pub2.
28.
33.
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Papadakis S, McDonald P, Mullen KA, Reid R, Skulsky K, Pipe A. Strategies to increase the delivery of smoking cessation treatments in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2010;51(3–4):199–213. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.06.007.CrossRefPubMed Papadakis S, McDonald P, Mullen KA, Reid R, Skulsky K, Pipe A. Strategies to increase the delivery of smoking cessation treatments in primary care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2010;51(3–4):199–213. doi:10.​1016/​j.​ypmed.​2010.​06.​007.CrossRefPubMed
35.
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Jepson R, Harris F, Rowa-Dewar N, MacGillivray S, Hastings G, Kearney N, et al. A review of the effectiveness of mass media interventions which both encourage quit attempts and reinforce current and recent attempts to quit smoking. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2006. Jepson R, Harris F, Rowa-Dewar N, MacGillivray S, Hastings G, Kearney N, et al. A review of the effectiveness of mass media interventions which both encourage quit attempts and reinforce current and recent attempts to quit smoking. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. 2006.
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Brinn MP, Carson KV, Esterman AJ, Chang AB, Smith BJ. Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Evid Based Child Health. 2012;7(1):86–144. doi:10.1002/ebch.1808.CrossRef Brinn MP, Carson KV, Esterman AJ, Chang AB, Smith BJ. Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Evid Based Child Health. 2012;7(1):86–144. doi:10.​1002/​ebch.​1808.CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Quentin W, Neubauer S, Leidl R, König HH. Advertising bans as a means of tobacco control policy: a systematic literature review of time-series analyses. Int J Public Health. 2007;52(5):295–307.CrossRefPubMed Quentin W, Neubauer S, Leidl R, König HH. Advertising bans as a means of tobacco control policy: a systematic literature review of time-series analyses. Int J Public Health. 2007;52(5):295–307.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Capella ML, Taylor CR, Webster C. The effect of cigarette advertising bans on consumption. J Advertising. 2008;37(2):7–18.CrossRef Capella ML, Taylor CR, Webster C. The effect of cigarette advertising bans on consumption. J Advertising. 2008;37(2):7–18.CrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Rice N, Godfrey C, Slack R, Sowden A, Worthy G. A systematic review of the effects of price on the smoking behaviour of young people. UK: PHRC Project Outputs; A2-06; 2009. Rice N, Godfrey C, Slack R, Sowden A, Worthy G. A systematic review of the effects of price on the smoking behaviour of young people. UK: PHRC Project Outputs; A2-06; 2009.
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Youth access interventions do not affect youth smoking. Pediatrics. 2002;109(6):1088–92.CrossRefPubMed Fichtenberg CM, Glantz SA. Youth access interventions do not affect youth smoking. Pediatrics. 2002;109(6):1088–92.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Stead LF, Lancaster T. Interventions for preventing tobacco sales to minors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;1:CD001497. Stead LF, Lancaster T. Interventions for preventing tobacco sales to minors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;1:CD001497.
50.
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. JAMA. 1998;279(10):772–7.CrossRefPubMed Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. JAMA. 1998;279(10):772–7.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Eriksen MP, Gottlieb NH. A review of the health impact of smoking control at the workplace. Am J Health Promot. 1998;13(2):83–104.CrossRefPubMed Eriksen MP, Gottlieb NH. A review of the health impact of smoking control at the workplace. Am J Health Promot. 1998;13(2):83–104.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Willemsen MC, de Zwart WM. The effectiveness of policy and health education strategies for reducing adolescent smoking: a review of the evidence. J Adolesc. 1999;22(5):587–99.CrossRefPubMed Willemsen MC, de Zwart WM. The effectiveness of policy and health education strategies for reducing adolescent smoking: a review of the evidence. J Adolesc. 1999;22(5):587–99.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Wakefield M, Chaloupka F. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control. 2000;9(2):177–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wakefield M, Chaloupka F. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control. 2000;9(2):177–86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Lantz PM, Jacobson PD, Warner KE, Wasserman J, Pollack HA, Berson J, et al. Investing in youth tobacco control: a review of smoking prevention and control strategies. Tob Control. 2000;9(1):47–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lantz PM, Jacobson PD, Warner KE, Wasserman J, Pollack HA, Berson J, et al. Investing in youth tobacco control: a review of smoking prevention and control strategies. Tob Control. 2000;9(1):47–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Silver MZ. Efficacy of anti-tobacco mass media campaigns on adolescent tobacco use. Pediatr Nurs. 2001;27(3):293–6.PubMed Silver MZ. Efficacy of anti-tobacco mass media campaigns on adolescent tobacco use. Pediatr Nurs. 2001;27(3):293–6.PubMed
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Friend K, Levy DT. Reductions in smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption associated with mass-media campaigns. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(1):85–98.CrossRefPubMed Friend K, Levy DT. Reductions in smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption associated with mass-media campaigns. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(1):85–98.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Gallet CA, List JA. Cigarette demand: a meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):821–35.CrossRefPubMed Gallet CA, List JA. Cigarette demand: a meta-analysis of elasticities. Health Econ. 2003;12(10):821–35.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Snyder LB, Hamilton MA, Mitchell EW, Kiwanuka-Tondo J, Fleming-Milici F, Proctor D. A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. J Health Commun. 2004;9 Suppl 1:71–96.CrossRefPubMed Snyder LB, Hamilton MA, Mitchell EW, Kiwanuka-Tondo J, Fleming-Milici F, Proctor D. A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. J Health Commun. 2004;9 Suppl 1:71–96.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Greaves L, Johnson J, Bottorff J, Kirkland S, Jategaonkar N, McGowan M, et al. What are the effects of tobacco policies on vulnerable populations? A better practices review. Can J Public Health. 2006;97(4):310–5.PubMed Greaves L, Johnson J, Bottorff J, Kirkland S, Jategaonkar N, McGowan M, et al. What are the effects of tobacco policies on vulnerable populations? A better practices review. Can J Public Health. 2006;97(4):310–5.PubMed
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Laporte A. Price responsiveness of demand for cigarettes: does rationality matter? Subst Use Misuse. 2006;41(4):511–31.CrossRefPubMed Laporte A. Price responsiveness of demand for cigarettes: does rationality matter? Subst Use Misuse. 2006;41(4):511–31.CrossRefPubMed
63.
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Kabir Z, Alpert HR, Goodman PG, Haw S, Behm I, Connolly GN, et al. Effect of smoke-free home and workplace policies on second-hand smoke exposure levels in children: an evidence summary. Pediatric Health. 2010;4(4):391–403.CrossRef Kabir Z, Alpert HR, Goodman PG, Haw S, Behm I, Connolly GN, et al. Effect of smoke-free home and workplace policies on second-hand smoke exposure levels in children: an evidence summary. Pediatric Health. 2010;4(4):391–403.CrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat IARC. Handbooks of cancer prevention, tobacco control, Vol. 14: effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2011. IARC. Handbooks of cancer prevention, tobacco control, Vol. 14: effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2011.
68.
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, McNeill A, Angus K, Hinds K, et al. Plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. London: Public Health Research Consortium; 2012. Moodie C, Stead M, Bauld L, McNeill A, Angus K, Hinds K, et al. Plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. London: Public Health Research Consortium; 2012.
74.
Zurück zum Zitat Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Manske S, Goldblatt E. Effective practices for school-based tobacco use prevention. Prev Med. 2008;46(4):289–97.CrossRefPubMed Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Manske S, Goldblatt E. Effective practices for school-based tobacco use prevention. Prev Med. 2008;46(4):289–97.CrossRefPubMed
76.
Zurück zum Zitat Medical Advisory Secretariat. Population-based smoking cessation strategies: a summary of a select group of evidence-based reviews. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(1):1–44. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Population-based smoking cessation strategies: a summary of a select group of evidence-based reviews. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2010;10(1):1–44.
77.
Zurück zum Zitat Siegel M. The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: a review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:45–71.CrossRefPubMed Siegel M. The effectiveness of state-level tobacco control interventions: a review of program implementation and behavioral outcomes. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:45–71.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Zurück zum Zitat Secker-Walker RH, Gnich W, Platt S, Lancaster T. Community interventions for reducing smoking among adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;3:CD001745. Secker-Walker RH, Gnich W, Platt S, Lancaster T. Community interventions for reducing smoking among adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;3:CD001745.
79.
Zurück zum Zitat Murphy-Hoefer R, Griffith R, Pederson LL, Crossett L, Iyer SR, Hiller MD. A review of interventions to reduce tobacco use in colleges and universities. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2):188–200.CrossRefPubMed Murphy-Hoefer R, Griffith R, Pederson LL, Crossett L, Iyer SR, Hiller MD. A review of interventions to reduce tobacco use in colleges and universities. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2):188–200.CrossRefPubMed
80.
Zurück zum Zitat Carson KV, Brinn MP, Labiszewski NA, Esterman AJ, Chang AB, Smith BJ. Community interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7:CD001291. Carson KV, Brinn MP, Labiszewski NA, Esterman AJ, Chang AB, Smith BJ. Community interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7:CD001291.
81.
Zurück zum Zitat Carson KV, Brinn MP, Labiszewski NA, Peters M, Chang AB, Veale A, et al. Interventions for tobacco use prevention in Indigenous youth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD009325. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009325.pub2. Carson KV, Brinn MP, Labiszewski NA, Peters M, Chang AB, Veale A, et al. Interventions for tobacco use prevention in Indigenous youth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD009325. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD009325.​pub2.
82.
Zurück zum Zitat Thomson G, Wilson N, Howden-Chapman P. Population level policy options for increasing the prevalence of smokefree homes. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):298–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Thomson G, Wilson N, Howden-Chapman P. Population level policy options for increasing the prevalence of smokefree homes. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):298–304.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
83.
Zurück zum Zitat Resnicow K, Robinson TN. School-based cardiovascular disease prevention studies: review and synthesis. Ann Epidemiol. 1997;S7:S14–31.CrossRef Resnicow K, Robinson TN. School-based cardiovascular disease prevention studies: review and synthesis. Ann Epidemiol. 1997;S7:S14–31.CrossRef
84.
Zurück zum Zitat Sussman S. Effects of sixty six adolescent tobacco use cessation trials and seventeen prospective studies of self-initiated quitting. Tob Induc Dis. 2003;1(1):35–81.CrossRef Sussman S. Effects of sixty six adolescent tobacco use cessation trials and seventeen prospective studies of self-initiated quitting. Tob Induc Dis. 2003;1(1):35–81.CrossRef
85.
Zurück zum Zitat Smedslund G, Fisher KJ, Boles SM, Lichtenstein E. The effectiveness of workplace smoking cessation programmes: a meta-analysis of recent studies. Tob Control. 2004;13(2):197–204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Smedslund G, Fisher KJ, Boles SM, Lichtenstein E. The effectiveness of workplace smoking cessation programmes: a meta-analysis of recent studies. Tob Control. 2004;13(2):197–204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Zurück zum Zitat Wiehe SE, Garrison MM, Christakis DA, Ebel BE, Rivara FP. A systematic review of school-based smoking prevention trials with long-term follow-up. J Adolesc Health. 2005;36(3):162–9.CrossRefPubMed Wiehe SE, Garrison MM, Christakis DA, Ebel BE, Rivara FP. A systematic review of school-based smoking prevention trials with long-term follow-up. J Adolesc Health. 2005;36(3):162–9.CrossRefPubMed
87.
Zurück zum Zitat La Torre G, Chiaradia G, Ricciardi G. School-based smoking prevention in children and adolescents: review of the scientific literature. J Public Health. 2005;13(6):285–90.CrossRef La Torre G, Chiaradia G, Ricciardi G. School-based smoking prevention in children and adolescents: review of the scientific literature. J Public Health. 2005;13(6):285–90.CrossRef
88.
Zurück zum Zitat Müller-Riemenschneider F, Bockelbrink A, Reinhold T, Rasch A, Greiner W, Willich SN. Long-term effectiveness of behavioural interventions to prevent smoking among children and youth. Tob Control. 2008;17(5):301–2. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.024281.CrossRefPubMed Müller-Riemenschneider F, Bockelbrink A, Reinhold T, Rasch A, Greiner W, Willich SN. Long-term effectiveness of behavioural interventions to prevent smoking among children and youth. Tob Control. 2008;17(5):301–2. doi:10.​1136/​tc.​2007.​024281.CrossRefPubMed
90.
Zurück zum Zitat Uthman O, Yahaya I, Pennant M, Bayliss S, Aveyard P, Jit M, et al. School-based interventions to prevent the uptake of smoking among children and young people: effectiveness review. Birmingham (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK); 2009. p. 55. Uthman O, Yahaya I, Pennant M, Bayliss S, Aveyard P, Jit M, et al. School-based interventions to prevent the uptake of smoking among children and young people: effectiveness review. Birmingham (UK): National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK); 2009. p. 55.
92.
Zurück zum Zitat Goldgruber J, Ahrens D. Effectiveness of workplace health promotion and primary prevention interventions: a review. J Public Health. 2010;18(1):75–88.CrossRef Goldgruber J, Ahrens D. Effectiveness of workplace health promotion and primary prevention interventions: a review. J Public Health. 2010;18(1):75–88.CrossRef
93.
Zurück zum Zitat Saraf DS, Nongkynrih B, Pandav CS, Gupta SK, Shah B, Kapoor SK, et al. A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent risk factors associated with noncommunicable diseases. Asia-Pac J Public Health. 2012;24(5):733–52.CrossRefPubMed Saraf DS, Nongkynrih B, Pandav CS, Gupta SK, Shah B, Kapoor SK, et al. A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent risk factors associated with noncommunicable diseases. Asia-Pac J Public Health. 2012;24(5):733–52.CrossRefPubMed
95.
Zurück zum Zitat Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Beach ML, Mott LA, Tickle JJ, Ahrens MB, et al. Viewing tobacco use in movies: does it shape attitudes that mediate adolescent smoking? Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):137–45.CrossRefPubMed Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Beach ML, Mott LA, Tickle JJ, Ahrens MB, et al. Viewing tobacco use in movies: does it shape attitudes that mediate adolescent smoking? Am J Prev Med. 2002;22(3):137–45.CrossRefPubMed
96.
Zurück zum Zitat Sargent JD, Beach ML, Adachi-Mejia AM, Gibson JJ, Titus-Ernstoff LT, Carusi CP, et al. Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005;116(5):1183–91.CrossRefPubMed Sargent JD, Beach ML, Adachi-Mejia AM, Gibson JJ, Titus-Ernstoff LT, Carusi CP, et al. Exposure to movie smoking: its relation to smoking initiation among US adolescents. Pediatrics. 2005;116(5):1183–91.CrossRefPubMed
97.
Zurück zum Zitat Charlesworth A, Glantz SA. Smoking in the movies increases adolescent smoking: a review. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1516–28.CrossRefPubMed Charlesworth A, Glantz SA. Smoking in the movies increases adolescent smoking: a review. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1516–28.CrossRefPubMed
98.
Zurück zum Zitat Wellman RJ, Sugarman DB, DiFranza JR, Winickoff JP. The extent to which tobacco marketing and tobacco use in films contribute to children’s use of tobacco: a meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(12):1285–96.CrossRefPubMed Wellman RJ, Sugarman DB, DiFranza JR, Winickoff JP. The extent to which tobacco marketing and tobacco use in films contribute to children’s use of tobacco: a meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(12):1285–96.CrossRefPubMed
100.
Zurück zum Zitat Saffer H, Chaloupka F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. J Health Econ. 2000;19(6):1117–37.CrossRefPubMed Saffer H, Chaloupka F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. J Health Econ. 2000;19(6):1117–37.CrossRefPubMed
102.
Zurück zum Zitat Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Ending the tobacco epidemic: a blueprint for the nation. Washington D.C: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2007. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Ending the tobacco epidemic: a blueprint for the nation. Washington D.C: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies; 2007.
103.
Zurück zum Zitat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs – 2014. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best practices for comprehensive tobacco control programs – 2014. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014.
104.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization. 2014 Global progress report on implementation of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014. World Health Organization. 2014 Global progress report on implementation of the WHO framework convention on tobacco control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
105.
Zurück zum Zitat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012 Surgeon general’s report – Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012 Surgeon general’s report – Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012.
Metadaten
Titel
Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies
verfasst von
Steven J. Hoffman
Charlie Tan
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2015
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Public Health / Ausgabe 1/2015
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2041-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Zur Ausgabe