Sarah Hill1, Amanda Amos2, David Clifford3, Stephen Platt3. 1. Global Public Health Unit, School of Social & Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK. 2. UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK. 3. Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We updated and expanded a previous systematic literature review examining the impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. METHODS: We searched the academic literature for reviews and primary research articles published between January 2006 and November 2010 that examined the socioeconomic impact of six tobacco control interventions in adults: that is, price increases, smoke-free policies, advertising bans, mass media campaigns, warning labels, smoking cessation support and community-based programmes combining several interventions. We included English-language articles from countries at an advanced stage of the tobacco epidemic that examined the differential impact of tobacco control interventions by socioeconomic status or the effectiveness of interventions among disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. All articles were appraised by two authors and details recorded using a standardised approach. Data from 77 primary studies and seven reviews were synthesised via narrative review. RESULTS: We found strong evidence that increases in tobacco price have a pro-equity effect on socioeconomic disparities in smoking. Evidence on the equity impact of other interventions is inconclusive, with the exception of non-targeted smoking cessation programmes which have a negative equity impact due to higher quit rates among more advantaged smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Increased tobacco price via tax is the intervention with the greatest potential to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. Other measures studied appear unlikely to reduce inequalities in smoking without specific efforts to reach disadvantaged smokers. There is a need for more research evaluating the equity impact of tobacco control measures, and development of more effective approaches for reducing tobacco use in disadvantaged groups and communities. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVE: We updated and expanded a previous systematic literature review examining the impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. METHODS: We searched the academic literature for reviews and primary research articles published between January 2006 and November 2010 that examined the socioeconomic impact of six tobacco control interventions in adults: that is, price increases, smoke-free policies, advertising bans, mass media campaigns, warning labels, smoking cessation support and community-based programmes combining several interventions. We included English-language articles from countries at an advanced stage of the tobacco epidemic that examined the differential impact of tobacco control interventions by socioeconomic status or the effectiveness of interventions among disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. All articles were appraised by two authors and details recorded using a standardised approach. Data from 77 primary studies and seven reviews were synthesised via narrative review. RESULTS: We found strong evidence that increases in tobacco price have a pro-equity effect on socioeconomic disparities in smoking. Evidence on the equity impact of other interventions is inconclusive, with the exception of non-targeted smoking cessation programmes which have a negative equity impact due to higher quit rates among more advantaged smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Increased tobacco price via tax is the intervention with the greatest potential to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. Other measures studied appear unlikely to reduce inequalities in smoking without specific efforts to reach disadvantaged smokers. There is a need for more research evaluating the equity impact of tobacco control measures, and development of more effective approaches for reducing tobacco use in disadvantaged groups and communities. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disparities; Public Policy; Socioeconomic Status
Authors: Patrick J Hammett; Harry A Lando; Darin J Erickson; Rachel Widome; Brent C Taylor; David Nelson; Sandra J Japuntich; Steven S Fu Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2019-07-30
Authors: Sean Esteban McCabe; Alicia K Matthews; Joseph G L Lee; Phil Veliz; Tonda L Hughes; Carol J Boyd Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Irene J Elkins; Gretchen R B Saunders; Stephen M Malone; Margaret A Keyes; Matt McGue; William G Iacono Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Hannah G Lawman; Kevin A Henry; Annaka Scheeres; Amory Hillengas; Ryan Coffman; Andrew A Strasser Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Lesia M Ruglass; James C Root; Naomi Dambreville; Alina Shevorykin; Noshin Haque; Vicki Sun; Christine E Sheffer; Robert D Melara Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 1.798