Maja Lykke1, Charlotta Pisinger2, Charlotte Glümer3. 1. Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Capital Region of Denmark, Glostrup University Hospital, Nordre Ringvej 57, Building 84-85, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark. Electronic address: maja.lykke@regionh.dk. 2. Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Capital Region of Denmark, Glostrup University Hospital, Nordre Ringvej 57, Building 84-85, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark. Electronic address: charlotte.pisinger@regionh.dk. 3. Research Centre for Prevention and Health, Capital Region of Denmark, Glostrup University Hospital, Nordre Ringvej 57, Building 84-85, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark; Department of Health Science and Technology, Aalborg University, Fredrik Bajers Vej 7 D2, DK-9220 Aalborg East, Denmark. Electronic address: charlotte.gluemer@regionh.dk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess support for a future ban on smoking and for increasing tobacco taxes in Denmark, and to explore if support differed across sex, age, educational attainment, smoking status and intention to quit. METHODS: Data from a 2013 health survey representative of the population aged ≥16years in the Capital Region of Denmark (N=41,356, response rate=43.5) was linked with data on sex, age and education from central registers. Participants were asked if they supported: 1) a future ban on smoking in Denmark, and 2) increased taxes on tobacco products. Subgroup differences were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: 30.6% supported a future ban on smoking, while 59.0% supported increased taxes. Women were less supportive of a future ban (OR=0.83 (0.78-0.88)) and more supportive of increasing taxes (OR=1.11 (1.06-1.18)) than men. Support for both measures was higher among the youngest. Only small differences were found in ban support across educational attainment, while support for taxes increased with increasing education. Support for both measures were greatest among never smokers (OR=2.66 (2.40-2.93) and OR=9.69 (8.83-10.63)) compared to daily smokers. Smokers intending to quit were two to three times as likely to support a future ban or increased taxes compared to smokers with no quit intensions. CONCLUSION: One third supported a future ban on smoking, while six out of ten supported increasing taxes. This first Danish study of support for more radical tobacco control adds to the growing literature on tobacco endgame and sets a baseline for future assessments of public support.
OBJECTIVES: To assess support for a future ban on smoking and for increasing tobacco taxes in Denmark, and to explore if support differed across sex, age, educational attainment, smoking status and intention to quit. METHODS: Data from a 2013 health survey representative of the population aged ≥16years in the Capital Region of Denmark (N=41,356, response rate=43.5) was linked with data on sex, age and education from central registers. Participants were asked if they supported: 1) a future ban on smoking in Denmark, and 2) increased taxes on tobacco products. Subgroup differences were explored using logistic regression. RESULTS: 30.6% supported a future ban on smoking, while 59.0% supported increased taxes. Women were less supportive of a future ban (OR=0.83 (0.78-0.88)) and more supportive of increasing taxes (OR=1.11 (1.06-1.18)) than men. Support for both measures was higher among the youngest. Only small differences were found in ban support across educational attainment, while support for taxes increased with increasing education. Support for both measures were greatest among never smokers (OR=2.66 (2.40-2.93) and OR=9.69 (8.83-10.63)) compared to daily smokers. Smokers intending to quit were two to three times as likely to support a future ban or increased taxes compared to smokers with no quit intensions. CONCLUSION: One third supported a future ban on smoking, while six out of ten supported increasing taxes. This first Danish study of support for more radical tobacco control adds to the growing literature on tobacco endgame and sets a baseline for future assessments of public support.
Authors: Yee Tak Derek Cheung; Xue Weng; Man Ping Wang; Sai Yin Ho; Antonio Cho Shing Kwong; Vienna Wai Yin Lai; Tai Hing Lam Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Eloise Howse; Katherine Cullerton; Anne Grunseit; Erika Bohn-Goldbaum; Adrian Bauman; Becky Freeman Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2022-03-04
Authors: Melanie Boeckmann; Daniel Kotz; Lion Shahab; Jamie Brown; Sabrina Kastaun Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: David T Levy; Ron Borland; Eric N Lindblom; Maciej L Goniewicz; Rafael Meza; Theodore R Holford; Zhe Yuan; Yuying Luo; Richard J O'Connor; Raymond Niaura; David B Abrams Journal: Tob Control Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Otto Ruokolainen; Hanna Ollila; Kristiina Patja; Katja Borodulin; Tiina Laatikainen; Tellervo Korhonen Journal: Nordisk Alkohol Nark Date: 2018-04-19