Interpreting results, impacts and implications from WHO FCTC tobacco control investment cases in 21 low-income and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control investment cases analyse the health and socioeconomic costs of tobacco use and the benefits that can be achieved from implementing measures outlined in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC). They are intended to provide policy-makers and other stakeholders with country-level evidence that is relevant, useful and responsive to national priorities and policy context. METHODS: This paper synthesises findings from investment cases conducted in Armenia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Laos, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia and Zambia. We examine annual socioeconomic costs associated with tobacco use, focusing on smoking-related healthcare expenditures, the value of lives lost due to tobacco-related mortality and workplace productivity losses due to smoking. We explore potential benefits associated with WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures. RESULTS: Tobacco use results in average annual socioeconomic losses of US$95 million, US$610 million and US$1.6 billion among the low-income (n=3), lower-middle-income (n=12) and upper-middle-income countries (n=6) included in this analysis, respectively. These losses are equal to 1.1%, 1.8% and 2.9% of average annual national gross domestic product, respectively. Implementation and enforcement of WHO FCTC tobacco demand-reduction measures would lead to reduced tobacco use, fewer tobacco-related deaths and reduced socioeconomic losses. CONCLUSIONS: WHO FCTC tobacco control measures would provide a positive return on investment in every country analysed.

Advancing progress on tobacco control in low-income and middle-income countries through economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: More than 80% of the world's 1.3 billion tobacco users live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where progress to address tobacco and its harms has been slow. The perception that tobacco control detracts from economic priorities has impeded progress. The Secretariat of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) is leading the FCTC 2030 project, which includes technical assistance to LMICs to analyse the economic costs of tobacco use and the benefits of tobacco control. METHODS: The Secretariat of the WHO FCTC, United Nations Development Programme and WHO supported 21 LMICs between 2017 and 2022 to complete national investment cases to guide country implementation of the WHO FCTC, with analytical support provided by RTI International. These country-level cases combine customised estimates of tobacco's economic impact with qualitative analysis of socio-political factors influencing tobacco control. This paper overviews the approach, observed tobacco control advancements and learnings from 21 countries: Armenia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Eswatini, Georgia, Ghana, Jordan, Laos, Madagascar, Myanmar, Nepal, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tunisia and Zambia. RESULTS: Tobacco control advancements in line with investment case findings and recommendations have been observed in 17 of the 21 countries, and many have improved collaboration and policy coherence between health and economic stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco control must be seen as more than a health concern. Tobacco control leads to economic benefits and contributes to sustainable development. National investment cases can support country ownership and leadership to advance tobacco control.

Global smoking-related deaths averted due to MPOWER policies implemented at the highest level between 2007 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: In response to the harm caused by tobacco use worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) World Health Assembly actioned the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005. To help countries meet their FCTC obligations, the WHO introduced in 2008 the MPOWER policy package and by 2020 the FCTC had been ratified by 182 parties. The package consists of six evidence-based demand reduction smoking cessation policies to assist countries to achieve best practice. We used published evaluation results and replicated the published model to estimate current policy achievement and demonstrate the impact and equity of the MPOWER policy package in reducing the global number of smokers and smoking-attributable deaths (SADs) between 2007 and 2020. METHODS: We replicated an evaluation model (the Abridged SimSmoke model) used previously for country impact assessments and validated our replicated reduction in SADs for policies between 2014 and 2016 against the published results. The replicated model was then applied to report on the country level SADs averted from achieving the highest level of implementation, that is best practice in MPOWER policies, between 2016 and 2020. The latest results were then combined with past published results to estimate the reduction in SADs since the commencement of the MPOWER policy package. Country level income status was used to investigate the equity in the uptake of MPOWER policies worldwide. RESULTS: Identical estimates for SADs in 41 out of 56 MPOWER policies implemented in 43 countries suggested good agreement in the model replication. The replicated model overestimated the reduction in SADs by 159,800 (1.5%) out of a total of 10.5 million SADs with three countries contributing to the majority of this replication discrepancy. Updated analysis estimated a reduction of 8.57 million smokers and 3.37 million SADs between 2016 and 2020. Between 2007 and 2020, 136 countries had adopted and maintained at least one MPOWER policy at the highest level which was associated with a reduction in 81.0 million smokers and 28.3 million SADs. Seventy five percent of this reduction was in middle income countries, 20% in high income and less than 5% in low income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable progress has been made by MPOWER policies to reduce the prevalence of smokers globally. However, there is inequality in the implementation and maintenance, reach and influence, and the number of SADs averted. Future research to modify the model could provide a more comprehensive evaluation of past and future progress in tobacco control policies, worldwide.

The final puff.

Public health officials have drawn on a decade of research to craft a plan to make New Zealand smoke-free.

The Implementation Activist: How One Determined Person with a Camera Has Achieved Enforcement of Smoke-Free Laws throughout Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke are leading causes of disease and premature death in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where over 80% of smokers live. Over 152 LMICs, including Thailand, have passed laws designating that indoor and outdoor public spaces should be smoke-free. Throughout LMICs, implementation of laws has been a persistent problem. We identified one activist in Thailand who developed his own highly effective strategy for ensuring implementation of smoke-free laws, and whose approach has potential for being a model for implementation activists in other LMICs. OBJECTIVES: We set out to describe the implementation activist's strategy and impact, and to explore his perspective and motivations. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with the activist, reviewed video recordings and transcripts, and used narrative analysis to identify key themes and illuminating statements. FINDINGS: In the implementation activist's assessment, administrators and officials were not being held accountable for their responsibilities to enforce laws, resulting in low public compliance. The activist developed his strategy to first identify public places where no-smoking signs were not posted and/or where people were smoking; take photographs of violations and make notes; and file citizen's complaints at police stations, submitting his photographs as evidence. The implementation activist documented over 5,100 violations of smoke-free laws throughout Thailand and reported violations to police. Often, police officers were unsure how to deal with his complaints, but when he educated them about the law, most undertook enforcement actions. The activist's work has contributed substantially to creating smoke-free schools, sports facilities and parks. CONCLUSION: This implementation activist's approach can be a model for preventing youth from using tobacco/nicotine, and preventing exposures to secondhand smoke and e-cigarette emissions. Based on his successes, we provide a list of elements that implementation activists can use to be effective, along with recommendations for policy and practice.

Banning Loose Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products in India: A Policy Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sale of single cigarettes (also known as singles or loosies) is a key driver for early initiation of smoking and is a leading contributor to the smoking epidemic in India. Sale of singles additionally deter implementation of tobacco control strategies of pictorial health warnings including plain packaging and defeat effective taxation and promote illicit trade. We review India's tobacco control policy responses towards banning singles and other products sold as loose tobacco and identify opportunities for future policy intervention especially in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Existing national and sub-national policy documents were analyzed for their content since the inception of the tobacco control laws in the country. RESULTS: There are no effective provisions at national level to ban loose tobacco products in India. However, the implementation of multiple legislative and regulatory measures (Acts/circulars/letters/notifications/orders/court judgements) in 16 Indian states and jurisdictions provide sufficient legal framework to substantiate its complete ban pan India. While the majority of state governments have adopted state level measures, Rajasthan had issued specific directive to all the 33 districts banning loose cigarettes and other tobacco products. Himachal Pradesh introduced the most unique and comprehensive legislation, for banning the sale of cigarettes and beedis (Dated November 7, 2016). The most recent notification in the state of Maharashtra (September 24, 2020) is the first to leverage powers using a mix of national and state legislations including the legislation addressing the rapidly emerging challenge of managing COVID-19. CONCLUSION: A robust national policy which supports strong provision to deter tobacco companies, their distribution network and vendors from selling singles or loose tobacco products is urgently needed. Such policy should be backed by cautionary messaging for consumers as well. Eliminating singles and loose tobacco sale will help in blunting tobacco use prevalence besides curbing spread of infectious diseases like COVID-19 pandemic.

Implementation of MPOWER Package in the South-East Asia Region: Evidence from the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic (2009-2021).

The WHO MPOWER package is a set of six evidence-based and cost-effective measures which was introduced on 7 February 2008 to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control at the ground level. These measures are: Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies (M); Protecting people from tobacco smoke (P); Offering help to quit tobacco use (O); Warning about the dangers of tobacco (W); Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (E); and Raising taxes on tobacco (R). Since its launch, the MPOWER package has become the guiding principle for all the countries of the South-East Asia Region in their crusade against the tobacco epidemic. This review article tracks the implementation of the MPOWER measures in the 11 member countries of the Region based on the last seven WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic (GTCR), i.e., GTCR2/2009-GTCR8/2021. This is with an aim to enable the countries to review their progress in implementing the MPOWER measures and to take steps to improve their advancement towards reducing the demand for tobacco products at the country level.

Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship in India and Indonesia: Present Regime and the Way Forward.

One of the important factors contributing to tobacco epidemic is tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS). TAPS is employed by tobacco industry to increase demand for its products, often through targeting specific groups or market segments. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) recommends implementation of comprehensive bans on TAPS as part of an effective set of tobacco control policies. Article 13 of the WHO FCTC and its guidelines mandate a comprehensive ban on all TAPS. Besides, TAPS ban is one of the MPOWER strategy and is included in the 'Best Buys' for effective tobacco control. However, many countries, especially low-income and middle-income countries, primarily implement only partial TAPS bans, allowing the tobacco industry to directly or indirectly advertise and promote its products via multiple media. This review article analyzes the current state of affairs in respect of TAPS in India and Indonesia, the two of the largest countries in the WHO South-East Asia Region of the world, and discusses the way forward to address the identified gaps in TAPS ban policy formulation and implementation focusing on strengthening its compliance and enforcement at the country level.

Association of state tobacco control policies with active smoking at the time of intervention for intermittent claudication.

OBJECTIVE: Active smoking among patients undergoing interventions for intermittent claudication (IC) is associated with poor outcomes. Notwithstanding, current levels of active smoking in these patients are high. State-level tobacco control policies have been shown to reduce smoking in the general US population. We evaluated whether state cigarette taxes and 100% smoke-free workplace legislation are associated with active smoking among patients undergoing interventions for IC. METHODS: We queried the Vascular Quality Initiative database for peripheral endovascular interventions, infrainguinal bypasses, and suprainguinal bypasses for IC. Active smoking at the time of intervention was defined as smoking within one month of intervention. We implemented difference-in-differences analysis to isolate changes in active smoking owing to cigarette taxes (adjusted for inflation) and implementation of smoke-free workplace legislation. The difference-in-differences models estimated the causal effects of tobacco policies by adjusting for concurrent temporal trends in active smoking unrelated to cigarette taxes or smoke-free workplace legislation. The models controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance type, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, state, and year. We tested interactions of taxes with age and insurance. RESULTS: Data were available for 59,847 patients undergoing interventions for IC in 25 states from 2011 to 2019. Across the study period, active smoking at the time of intervention decreased from 48% to 40%. Every $1.00 cigarette tax increase was associated with a 6-percentage point decrease in active smoking (95% confidence interval, -10 to -1 percentage points; P = .02), representing an 11% decrease relative to the baseline proportion of patients actively smoking. The effect of cigarettes taxes was greater in older patients and those on Medicare. Among patients aged 60 to 69 and 70 to 79 years, every $1.00 tax increase resulted in 14% and 21% reductions in active smoking relative to baseline subgroup prevalences of 53% and 29%, respectively (P < .05 for both); however, younger age groups were not affected by tax increases. Among insurance groups, only patients on Medicare exhibited a significant change in active smoking with every $1.00 tax increase (an 18% decrease relative to a 33% baseline prevalence; P = .01). The number of states implementing smoke-free workplace legislation increased from 9 to 14 by 2019; however, this policy was not significantly associated with active smoking prevalence. At follow-up (median, 12.9 months), $1.00 tax increases were still associated with decreased smoking prevalence (a 25% decrease relative to a 33% baseline prevalence; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Cigarette tax increases seem to be an effective strategy to decrease active smoking among patients undergoing interventions for IC. Older patients and Medicare recipients are the most responsive to tax increases.

Going smoke-free: University staff and students' qualitative views about smoking on campus during the implementation of a smoke-free policy.

BACKGROUND: Despite many Australian universities introducing smoke-free policies on campus, there is little information about staff and students understanding of smoking on campus in the context of the implementation of a smoke-free policy. OBJECTIVE: This research explores the qualitative views of university staff and students about smoking on campus during the implementation of a smoke-free policy. METHODS: In 2016, an electronic survey was distributed to all current staff and students of a large university in Queensland, Australia during the implementation of a smoke-free policy. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions about demographics, tobacco use, attitudes towards smoking, awareness of and attitudes towards the policy, and intentions to quit smoking. The final question asked for a short, open-ended response: "Would you like to comment on the issue of smoking on QUT* campuses?" This question was extracted from the survey and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. This paper reports the findings from this question. *Queensland University of Technology. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 641 staff and students. There were 351 responses to the final question. Five inductive themes emerged about smoking on campus during the implementation of a smoke-free policy: 1) the watering down of the policy, if it is not enforced, 2) the creation of hot spots on campus boundaries affecting those who pass by, 3) concern, especially by those who don't smoke, about the impact on smokers emotional health and welfare, 4) disagreement about the value of designated smoking areas and 5) suggestions about how to better implement the policy. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants views about smoking on campus during the implementation of a smoke free policy suggest broad agreement but reflect concerns about enforcement, boundaries, non-smokers and designated areas. Consistent and systematic processes for implementation, maintenance and enforcement of policy goals, and cessation support, is needed to create a non-smoking culture on university campuses.