Thomas G Kuijpers1, Marc C Willemsen2, Anton E Kunst3. 1. Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: t.kuijpers@maastrichtuniversity.nl. 2. Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In many countries, health advocates aim to increase public support for tobacco control policies by framing these policies in terms of child protection. We examined whether support for the protection of children is indeed associated with support for tobacco control policies, even among smokers, opponents of state intervention and opponents of a governmental role in tobacco control. METHODS: We used a survey on a representative sample of Dutch adults of 18 years and older (n = 1631). The survey measured respondents' support for banning tobacco displays, raising the age of sale for tobacco to 21 years and limiting tobacco sales to specialized shops. Regression analyses were done to assess the association with respondents' support for the protection of children against tobacco. In further analyses, subgroup interactions were added. RESULTS: Respondents' support for the protection of children against tobacco with legislation was positively related to support for all three policies. Associations were weaker for smokers (except for raising the age of sale) but similar for opponents of state intervention and opponents of a governmental role in tobacco control. CONCLUSION: This is the first paper to empirically support the idea that emphasizing the need to protect children against tobacco enhances support for tobacco control policies. This 'child effect' is effective in all segments of the population, albeit somewhat weaker among smokers.
INTRODUCTION: In many countries, health advocates aim to increase public support for tobacco control policies by framing these policies in terms of child protection. We examined whether support for the protection of children is indeed associated with support for tobacco control policies, even among smokers, opponents of state intervention and opponents of a governmental role in tobacco control. METHODS: We used a survey on a representative sample of Dutch adults of 18 years and older (n = 1631). The survey measured respondents' support for banning tobacco displays, raising the age of sale for tobacco to 21 years and limiting tobacco sales to specialized shops. Regression analyses were done to assess the association with respondents' support for the protection of children against tobacco. In further analyses, subgroup interactions were added. RESULTS: Respondents' support for the protection of children against tobacco with legislation was positively related to support for all three policies. Associations were weaker for smokers (except for raising the age of sale) but similar for opponents of state intervention and opponents of a governmental role in tobacco control. CONCLUSION: This is the first paper to empirically support the idea that emphasizing the need to protect children against tobacco enhances support for tobacco control policies. This 'child effect' is effective in all segments of the population, albeit somewhat weaker among smokers.
Authors: Louise Marsh; Pavla Vaneckova; Lindsay Robertson; Trent O Johnson; Crile Doscher; Ilana G Raskind; Nina C Schleicher; Lisa Henriksen Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Kelly D Blake; Anna Gaysynsky; Rachel Grana Mayne; Andrew B Seidenberg; Annette Kaufman; Heather D'Angelo; Maria Roditis; Robert E Vollinger Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Tracy T Smith; Georges J Nahhas; Ron Borland; Yoo Jin Cho; Janet Chung-Hall; Robert T Fairman; Geoffrey T Fong; Ann McNeill; Lucy Popova; James F Thrasher; K Michael Cummings Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Nienke W Boderie; Famke Jm Mölenberg; Aziz Sheikh; Wichor M Bramer; Alex Burdorf; Frank J van Lenthe; Jasper V Been Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Heike H Garritsen; Andrea D Rozema; Ien A M van de Goor; Anton E Kunst Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390