Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28339561›Full record

SynthesisNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2017

Computational Models Used to Assess US Tobacco Control Policies.

Shari P Feirman, Allison M Glasser, Shyanika Rose, Ray Niaura, David B Abrams, Lyubov Teplitskaya, Andrea C Villanti

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Estimating the Population Health Impact of Recently Introduced Modified Risk Tobacco Products: A Comparison of Different Approaches.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Shari P FeirmanThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC.
Allison M GlasserThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC.
Shyanika RoseThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC.
Ray NiauraThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC.
David B AbramsThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC.
Lyubov TeplitskayaDepartment of Evaluation, Science and Research, Truth Initiative, Washington, DC.
Andrea C VillantiThe Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at Truth Initiative, Washington, DC.
American Legacy Foundation · USJohns Hopkins University · USGeorgetown University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSimulation 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.

methodsStudies 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.

resultsSix 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.

conclusionsModels 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.

Indexed as

Government RegulationHumansModels, TheoreticalSmoke-Free PolicySmokingSmoking CessationTaxesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28339561
OpenAlexW2587931234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.