Amy K Ferketich1, Alessandra Lugo2, Carlo La Vecchia2, Esteve Fernandez3, Paolo Boffetta4, Luke Clancy5, Silvano Gallus6. 1. The Ohio State University College of Public Health, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 3. Tobacco Control Unit, Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d'Oncologia-ICO, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain Cancer Control and Prevention Group, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain Department of Clinical Sciences, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4. Institute for Translational Epidemiology and Tisch Cancer Institute, Ichan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 5. TobaccoFree Research Institute Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 6. IRCCS-Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche 'Mario Negri', Department of Epidemiology, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between national tobacco control policies and implementation of private home smoking bans. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between the Tobacco Control Scale (TCS), a score measuring national-level strength of tobacco control policies, and the prevalence of in-home smoking bans and beliefs on other tobacco control policies, among the Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU) that participated in the Pricing Policy And Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project. METHODS: A face-to-face representative survey, based on 18 056 individuals aged ≥15 years, from 18 European countries-including 16 EU MS-was conducted in 2010. Multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the relationship between the TCS score and in-home smoking ban prevalence and beliefs that other policy approaches are useful. RESULTS: In 2010, the TCS scores ranged from 32 in Austria and Greece to 77 in England. The TCS score correlated with the prevalence of in-home smoking bans (rsp=0.65). A 10-unit increase in the TCS score significantly increased the odds of in-home smoking ban (OR=1.33; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76). The odds of believing that providing cessation services (OR=1.21), raising prices (OR=1.01) and extending bans is useful (OR=0.93) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Government tobacco control policies are positively related to the individual-level tobacco policy of having an in-home smoking ban. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relationship between national tobacco control policies and implementation of private home smoking bans. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between the Tobacco Control Scale (TCS), a score measuring national-level strength of tobacco control policies, and the prevalence of in-home smoking bans and beliefs on other tobacco control policies, among the Member States (MS) of the European Union (EU) that participated in the Pricing Policy And Control of Tobacco in Europe (PPACTE) project. METHODS: A face-to-face representative survey, based on 18 056 individuals aged ≥15 years, from 18 European countries-including 16 EU MS-was conducted in 2010. Multilevel logistic regression models were fit to examine the relationship between the TCS score and in-home smoking ban prevalence and beliefs that other policy approaches are useful. RESULTS: In 2010, the TCS scores ranged from 32 in Austria and Greece to 77 in England. The TCS score correlated with the prevalence of in-home smoking bans (rsp=0.65). A 10-unit increase in the TCS score significantly increased the odds of in-home smoking ban (OR=1.33; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.76). The odds of believing that providing cessation services (OR=1.21), raising prices (OR=1.01) and extending bans is useful (OR=0.93) were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Government tobacco control policies are positively related to the individual-level tobacco policy of having an in-home smoking ban. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Denormalization; Public opinion; Public policy
Authors: Jennifer B Unger; Frank J Chaloupka; Donna Vallone; James F Thrasher; Destiney S Nettles; Tabitha P Hendershot; Gary E Swan Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Myrthe J Peelen; Aziz Sheikh; Marjolein Kok; Petra Hajenius; Luc J Zimmermann; Boris W Kramer; Chantal W Hukkelhoven; Irwin K Reiss; Ben W Mol; Jasper V Been Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Giuseppe Gorini; Giulia Carreras; Barbara Cortini; Simona Verdi; Maria Grazia Petronio; Piersante Sestini; Elisabetta Chellini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kristie Foley; Lorand Ferencz; Cristian Meghea; Zoltan Abram; Melinda Pénzes; Andrea Fogarasi-Grenczer; Peter Balazs; Lorand Schmidt Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Karin Hummel; Gera E Nagelhout; Marc C Willemsen; Pete Driezen; Linda Springvloet; Ute Mons; Anton E Kunst; Romain Guignard; Shane Allwright; Bas van den Putte; Ciska Hoving; Geoffrey T Fong; Ann McNeill; Mohammad Siahpush; Hein de Vries Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 4.492