The environmental profile of a community's health: a cross-sectional study on tobacco marketing in 16 countries.

OBJECTIVE: To examine and compare tobacco marketing in 16 countries while the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control requires parties to implement a comprehensive ban on such marketing. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2012, a kilometre-long walk was completed by trained investigators in 462 communities across 16 countries to collect data on tobacco marketing. We interviewed community members about their exposure to traditional and non-traditional marketing in the previous six months. To examine differences in marketing between urban and rural communities and between high-, middle- and low-income countries, we used multilevel regression models controlling for potential confounders. FINDINGS: Compared with high-income countries, the number of tobacco advertisements observed was 81 times higher in low-income countries (incidence rate ratio, IRR: 80.98; 95% confidence interval, CI: 4.15-1578.42) and the number of tobacco outlets was 2.5 times higher in both low- and lower-middle-income countries (IRR: 2.58; 95% CI: 1.17-5.67 and IRR: 2.52; CI: 1.23-5.17, respectively). Of the 11,842 interviewees, 1184 (10%) reported seeing at least five types of tobacco marketing. Self-reported exposure to at least one type of traditional marketing was 10 times higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries (odds ratio, OR: 9.77; 95% CI: 1.24-76.77). For almost all measures, marketing exposure was significantly lower in the rural communities than in the urban communities. CONCLUSION: Despite global legislation to limit tobacco marketing, it appears ubiquitous. The frequency and type of tobacco marketing varies on the national level by income group and by community type, appearing to be greatest in low-income countries and urban communities.

Use of secondary prevention drugs for cardiovascular disease in the community in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries (the PURE Study): a prospective epidemiological survey.

BACKGROUND: Although most cardiovascular disease occurs in low-income and middle-income countries, little is known about the use of effective secondary prevention medications in these communities. We aimed to assess use of proven effective secondary preventive drugs (antiplatelet drugs, ß blockers, angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers [ARBs], and statins) in individuals with a history of coronary heart disease or stroke. METHODS: In the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological (PURE) study, we recruited individuals aged 35-70 years from rural and urban communities in countries at various stages of economic development. We assessed rates of previous cardiovascular disease (coronary heart disease or stroke) and use of proven effective secondary preventive drugs and blood-pressure-lowering drugs with standardised questionnaires, which were completed by telephone interviews, household visits, or on patient's presentation to clinics. We report estimates of drug use at national, community, and individual levels. FINDINGS: We enrolled 153,996 adults from 628 urban and rural communities in countries with incomes classified as high (three countries), upper-middle (seven), lower-middle (three), or low (four) between January, 2003, and December, 2009. 5650 participants had a self-reported coronary heart disease event (median 5·0 years previously [IQR 2·0-10·0]) and 2292 had stroke (4·0 years previously [2·0-8·0]). Overall, few individuals with cardiovascular disease took antiplatelet drugs (25·3%), ß blockers (17·4%), ACE inhibitors or ARBs (19·5%), or statins (14·6%). Use was highest in high-income countries (antiplatelet drugs 62·0%, ß blockers 40·0%, ACE inhibitors or ARBs 49·8%, and statins 66·5%), lowest in low-income countries (8·8%, 9·7%, 5·2%, and 3·3%, respectively), and decreased in line with reduction of country economic status (p(trend)<0·0001 for every drug type). Fewest patients received no drugs in high-income countries (11·2%), compared with 45·1% in upper middle-income countries, 69·3% in lower middle-income countries, and 80·2% in low-income countries. Drug use was higher in urban than rural areas (antiplatelet drugs 28·7% urban vs 21·3% rural, ß blockers 23·5%vs 15·6%, ACE inhibitors or ARBs 22·8%vs 15·5%, and statins 19·9%vs 11·6%; all p<0·0001), with greatest variation in poorest countries (p(interaction)<0·0001 for urban vs rural differences by country economic status). Country-level factors (eg, economic status) affected rates of drug use more than did individual-level factors (eg, age, sex, education, smoking status, body-mass index, and hypertension and diabetes statuses). INTERPRETATION: Because use of secondary prevention medications is low worldwide-especially in low-income countries and rural areas-systematic approaches are needed to improve the long-term use of basic, inexpensive, and effective drugs. FUNDING: Full funding sources listed at end of paper (see Acknowledgments).