Tamara Brown1, Stephen Platt2, Amanda Amos3. 1. UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. 2. Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. 3. UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. Electronic address: Amanda.amos@ed.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is strong evidence about which tobacco control policies reduce smoking. However, their equity impact is uncertain. The aim was to assess the effectiveness of population-level interventions/policies to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in adult smoking. METHODS: Systematic review of studies of population-level interventions/policies reporting smoking-related outcomes in adults of lower compared to higher socioeconomic status (SES). References were screened and independently checked. Studies were quality assessed. Results are presented in a narrative synthesis. Equity impact was assessed as: positive (reduced inequality), neutral (no difference by SES), negative (increased inequality), mixed (equity impact varied) or unclear. RESULTS: 117 studies of 130 interventions/policies were included: smokefree (44); price/tax (27); mass media campaigns (30); advertising controls (9); cessation support (9); settings-based interventions (7); multiple policies (4). The distribution of equity effects was: 33 positive, 36 neutral, 38 negative, 6 mixed, 17 unclear. Most neutral equity studies benefited all SES groups. Fourteen price/tax studies were equity positive. Voluntary, regional and partial smokefree policies were more likely to be equity negative than national, comprehensive smokefree policies. Mass media campaigns had inconsistent equity effects. Cigarette marketing controls were equity positive or neutral. Targeted national smoking cessation services can be equity positive by achieving higher reach among low SES, compensating for lower quit rates. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have assessed the equity impact of tobacco control policy/interventions. Price/tax increases had the most consistent positive equity impact. More research is needed to strengthen the evidence-base for reducing smoking inequalities and to develop effective equity-orientated tobacco control strategies.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is strong evidence about which tobacco control policies reduce smoking. However, their equity impact is uncertain. The aim was to assess the effectiveness of population-level interventions/policies to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in adult smoking. METHODS: Systematic review of studies of population-level interventions/policies reporting smoking-related outcomes in adults of lower compared to higher socioeconomic status (SES). References were screened and independently checked. Studies were quality assessed. Results are presented in a narrative synthesis. Equity impact was assessed as: positive (reduced inequality), neutral (no difference by SES), negative (increased inequality), mixed (equity impact varied) or unclear. RESULTS: 117 studies of 130 interventions/policies were included: smokefree (44); price/tax (27); mass media campaigns (30); advertising controls (9); cessation support (9); settings-based interventions (7); multiple policies (4). The distribution of equity effects was: 33 positive, 36 neutral, 38 negative, 6 mixed, 17 unclear. Most neutral equity studies benefited all SES groups. Fourteen price/tax studies were equity positive. Voluntary, regional and partial smokefree policies were more likely to be equity negative than national, comprehensive smokefree policies. Mass media campaigns had inconsistent equity effects. Cigarette marketing controls were equity positive or neutral. Targeted national smoking cessation services can be equity positive by achieving higher reach among low SES, compensating for lower quit rates. CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have assessed the equity impact of tobacco control policy/interventions. Price/tax increases had the most consistent positive equity impact. More research is needed to strengthen the evidence-base for reducing smoking inequalities and to develop effective equity-orientated tobacco control strategies.
Authors: Neil M Davies; Amy E Taylor; Gemma Mj Taylor; Taha Itani; Tim Jones; Richard M Martin; Marcus R Munafò; Frank Windmeijer; Kyla H Thomas Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Amy Y Hafez; Mariaelena Gonzalez; Margarete C Kulik; Maya Vijayaraghavan; Stanton A Glantz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-09-19 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Dirk-Jan A van Mourik; Gera E Nagelhout; Hein de Vries; Bas van den Putte; K Michael Cummings; Ron Borland; Geoffrey T Fong; Marc C Willemsen Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Laura Gibson; Emily Brennan; Ani Momjian; Dina Shapiro-Luft; Holli Seitz; Joseph N Cappella Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: J Robert Branston; Ann McNeill; Anna B Gilmore; Rosemary Hiscock; Timea R Partos Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-10-06 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: L Springvloet; M C Willemsen; U Mons; B van den Putte; A E Kunst; R Guignard; K Hummel; S Allwright; M Siahpush; H de Vries; G E Nagelhout Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2015-08-31
Authors: France T Nguyen-Grozavu; John P Pierce; Kari-Lyn K Sakuma; Eric C Leas; Sara B McMenamin; Sheila Kealey; Tarik Benmarhnia; Sherry L Emery; Martha M White; Pebbles Fagan; Dennis R Trinidad Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-07-18 Impact factor: 4.018