Shari P Feirman1, Allison M Glasser1, Shyanika Rose1, Ray Niaura1,2,3, David B Abrams1,2,3, Lyubov Teplitskaya4,5, Andrea C Villanti1,2. 1. The Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC. 2. Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. 3. Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. 4. Department of Evaluation, Science and Research, Truth Initiative, Washington, DC. 5. Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Simulation models can be used to evaluate existing and potential tobacco control interventions, including policies. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence from computational models used to project population-level effects of tobacco control interventions. We provide recommendations to strengthen simulation models that evaluate tobacco control interventions. METHODS: Studies were eligible for review if they employed a computational model to predict the expected effects of a non-clinical US-based tobacco control intervention. We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 with no date restrictions and synthesized studies qualitatively. RESULTS: Six primary non-clinical intervention types were examined across the 40 studies: taxation, youth prevention, smoke-free policies, mass media campaigns, marketing/advertising restrictions, and product regulation. Simulation models demonstrated the independent and combined effects of these interventions on decreasing projected future smoking prevalence. Taxation effects were the most robust, as studies examining other interventions exhibited substantial heterogeneity with regard to the outcomes and specific policies examined across models. CONCLUSIONS: Models should project the impact of interventions on overall tobacco use, including nicotine delivery product use, to estimate preventable health and cost-saving outcomes. Model validation, transparency, more sophisticated models, and modeling policy interactions are also needed to inform policymakers to make decisions that will minimize harm and maximize health. IMPLICATIONS: In this systematic review, evidence from multiple studies demonstrated the independent effect of taxation on decreasing future smoking prevalence, and models for other tobacco control interventions showed that these strategies are expected to decrease smoking, benefit population health, and are reasonable to implement from a cost perspective. Our recommendations aim to help policymakers and researchers minimize harm and maximize overall population-level health benefits by considering the real-world context in which tobacco control interventions are implemented.
INTRODUCTION: Simulation models can be used to evaluate existing and potential tobacco control interventions, including policies. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize evidence from computational models used to project population-level effects of tobacco control interventions. We provide recommendations to strengthen simulation models that evaluate tobacco control interventions. METHODS: Studies were eligible for review if they employed a computational model to predict the expected effects of a non-clinical US-based tobacco control intervention. We searched five electronic databases on July 1, 2013 with no date restrictions and synthesized studies qualitatively. RESULTS: Six primary non-clinical intervention types were examined across the 40 studies: taxation, youth prevention, smoke-free policies, mass media campaigns, marketing/advertising restrictions, and product regulation. Simulation models demonstrated the independent and combined effects of these interventions on decreasing projected future smoking prevalence. Taxation effects were the most robust, as studies examining other interventions exhibited substantial heterogeneity with regard to the outcomes and specific policies examined across models. CONCLUSIONS: Models should project the impact of interventions on overall tobacco use, including nicotine delivery product use, to estimate preventable health and cost-saving outcomes. Model validation, transparency, more sophisticated models, and modeling policy interactions are also needed to inform policymakers to make decisions that will minimize harm and maximize health. IMPLICATIONS: In this systematic review, evidence from multiple studies demonstrated the independent effect of taxation on decreasing future smoking prevalence, and models for other tobacco control interventions showed that these strategies are expected to decrease smoking, benefit population health, and are reasonable to implement from a cost perspective. Our recommendations aim to help policymakers and researchers minimize harm and maximize overall population-level health benefits by considering the real-world context in which tobacco control interventions are implemented.
Authors: Andrew Hyland; Karin A Kasza; Nicolette Borek; Heather L Kimmel; Kristie A Taylor; Wilson M Compton; Hannah Day; Elisabeth A Donaldson; Eva Sharma; Gabriella Anic; Kathryn C Edwards; Michael J Halenar; Lynn C Hull; Wendy Kissin; Jean Limpert; Elizabeth L Seaman; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Lisa D Gardner; Hoda T Hammad; Cassandra A Stanton Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Jamie Tam; Jihyoun Jeon; James F Thrasher; David Hammond; Theodore R Holford; David T Levy; Rafael Meza Journal: JAMA Health Forum Date: 2021-09-24
Authors: Jamie Tam; David T Levy; Jihyoun Jeon; John Clarke; Scott Gilkeson; Tim Hall; Eric J Feuer; Theodore R Holford; Rafael Meza Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Peter N Lee; David Abrams; Annette Bachand; Gizelle Baker; Ryan Black; Oscar Camacho; Geoffrey Curtin; Smilja Djurdjevic; Andrew Hill; David Mendez; Raheema S Muhammad-Kah; Jose Luis Murillo; Raymond Niaura; Yezdi B Pithawalla; Bill Poland; Sandra Sulsky; Lai Wei; Rolf Weitkunat Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244