ArticlePreventive medicine2017
The effect of MPOWER scores on cigarette smoking prevalence and consumption.
Article in Preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and network meta-analysis of population-level interventions to tackle smoking behaviour.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
- Beyond MPOWER: a systematic review of population-level factors that affect European tobacco smoking rates.European journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Geographic disparities and health inequality evolution in the disease burden of tracheal, bronchus, and lung cancer in Asia: a 33-year longitudinal analysis and future projections.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring a Road Map to Achieving Tobacco Endgame in sub-Saharan Africa: A Qualitative Study Among Stakeholders From 12 Countries.Global health, science and practice · 2026Article
- Structured evaluation of gender integration in tobacco control research.Tobacco control · 2026Review
- Article
- Using implementation science for WHO noncommunicable disease technical packages in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Review
- Global Trends and Forecast of Cardiovascular Diseases, Cancer, and Shared Risk Factors: Insights From the GBD 2021.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Association between exposure to tobacco control measures and current nicotine use among adolescents in Saudi Arabia: Evidence from the 2022 global youth tobacco survey.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- The Burden of Lip and Oral Cavity Cancer Among Women Across 204 Countries and Territories in the Context of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Article
- Cardiovascular disease in the Americas: the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2025Review
- Global burden of head and neck cancer: Epidemiological transitions, inequities, and projections to 2050.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- The contribution of avoidable mortality to life expectancy differences and lifespan disparities in the European Union: a population-based study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Estimated impact of a tobacco-elimination strategy on lung-cancer mortality in 185 countries: a population-based birth-cohort simulation study.The Lancet. Public health · 2024Article
- Non-small-cell lung cancer.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Review
- Crowding-out effect of tobacco consumption in Serbia.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- Affordability of cigarettes in ten Southeastern European countries between 2008 and 2019.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- Global smoking-related deaths averted due to MPOWER policies implemented at the highest level between 2007 and 2020.Globalization and health · 2024Article
- Suicide mortality following the implementation of tobacco packaging and pricing policies in Korea: an interrupted time-series analysis.BMC medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the MPOWER package to support policy implementation under the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). This study examined the effect of MPOWER policies on smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption in a global context.
methodsThe MPOWER composite score was constructed by adding up the six MPOWER scores for each country and survey year 2007-2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014, with a possible range between 6 (1 in each of the six score) and 29 (4 in M score and 5 in POWER scores). MPOWER composite scores that measured policy implementation were then linked to cigarette smoking prevalence and consumption data from Euromonitor International. Fractional logit and OLS regressions were employed to examine the effect of the composite MPOWER score on adult smoking prevalence and cigarette consumption, respectively.
resultsResults indicate that a 1-unit increase in the composite score reduces smoking prevalence by 0.2 percentage points (p<0.05) among adults and 0.3 percentage points (p<0.01) among adult males; and a reduction of 23 sticks of cigarette (1 pack of cigarettes) in cigarette consumption per capita per year. At this rate, if countries had implemented the MPOWER package to the highest levels during 2007-2014, they would have experienced a reduction in smoking prevalence of 7.26% among adults and 7.87% among adult males and a reduction of 13.80% in cigarette consumption.
conclusionsMPOWER policies were effective in reducing cigarette smoking among adults. Parties should continue to implement MPOWER policies that have been recommended by the WHO FCTC to curb tobacco epidemic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.