Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23591499›Full record

ReviewTobacco control2013

Potential advantages and disadvantages of an endgame strategy: a 'sinking lid' on tobacco supply.

Nick Wilson, George W Thomson, Richard Edwards, Tony Blakely

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Tobacco control, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. An endgame for tobacco?Tobacco control · 2013
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nick WilsonDepartment of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 7343, Wellington South, Wellington 6002, New Zealand. Nick.wilson@otago.ac.nz
George W Thomson
Richard Edwards
Tony Blakely

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne possible supply-side strategy for the tobacco endgame is a government-mandated 'sinking lid' on tobacco supply (tradeable but decreasing quotas on sales or imports).

methodsWe considered literature on quota systems and from a tobacco endgame workshop at the University of Michigan.

findingsLikely strengths of the sinking lid strategy include: (1) that it can provide a clear timetable and an unambiguous signal of a tobacco end-date; (2) that supply reduction is likely to increase product price levels, and there is very strong evidence that increasing price is a highly effective tobacco control intervention. Its feasibility is also supported by the growing international experience with, and political acceptability of, using quota and auction systems in other domains (eg, greenhouse gases, other air pollutants and for fisheries). However, the main disadvantages of this strategy are probably the need for strong political will and high public support (to pass a new law), potential legal challenges by industry (eg, under trade agreements), and vulnerability to problems from illegal supplies of tobacco and from corruption.

conclusionsThe sinking lid strategy is a plausible option that is worth considering when investigating possible tobacco endgame strategies, though it may be most applicable in well-organised jurisdictions with low (<15%) adult smoking prevalence. This idea could benefit from further research, such as studies in virtual worlds, and real-world testing on small island jurisdictions, or closed systems, such as military bases.

Indexed as

Smoking PreventionBiomedical ResearchCommerceGovernmentHealth PromotionHumansPoliticsSmoking CessationTobacco IndustryTobacco Products

Identifiers

PMID23591499
PMCPMC3632985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.