ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2018
Political priorities and public health services in English local authorities: the case of tobacco control and smoking cessation services.
Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of disinvestment on alcohol and drug treatment delivery and outcomes: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2021Pooled it
- Formulating tobacco control policies: How can local governments contribute?Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2024Article
- Mental health and smoking cessation-a population survey in England.BMC medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Since 2013, local authorities in England have been responsible for public health including smoking cessation services. Methods: Online surveys of tobacco control leads in English local authorities were conducted in 2014 (76% response rate, n = 116), 2015 (82% response rate, n = 124) and 2016 (85% response rate, n = 129). Results: A high priority for tobacco control was reported in 17% of local authorities in 2014, rising to 27% in 2016. A low priority for tobacco control was reported in 4% of local authorities in 2014, rising to 11% in 2016. Budgets for smoking cessation services were cut in 16% of local authorities in 2014, 39% in 2015 and 59% in 2016. In 2016, budgets were cut in all local authorities where the priority given to tobacco control was perceived to be low and in 40% of the local authorities where it was perceived to be high. Cuts in smoking cessation budgets were principally due to cuts to the public health grant and wider cuts to local authority budgets. Conclusions: At a time of significant cost pressure, political support for tobacco control in English local authorities mitigates but does not remove the risk of cuts to budgets for smoking cessation services.
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.