Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31226963›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Who calls the shots in tobacco control policy? Policy monopolies of pro and anti-tobacco interest groups across six European countries.

Thomas G Kuijpers, Anton E Kunst, Marc C Willemsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Thomas G KuijpersDepartment of Health Promotion, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands. t.kuijpers@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5918-0032
Anton E KunstDepartment of Public Health, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marc C WillemsenDepartment of Health Promotion, CAPHRI Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Peter Debyeplein 1, 6229 HA, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Maastricht University · NLAmsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Horizon 2020 635056
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOne of the factors influencing variation in tobacco control policies across European countries is the relative policy dominance of pro and anti-tobacco control interest groups. Scholars investigating this power balance have predominantly conducted single country case studies. This study aims to explore and describe the relative dominance of pro and anti-tobacco control interest groups across six European countries by using a tobacco display ban as a case study. We examined whether there are patterns and similarities with regards to two components of policy monopolies: framing of tobacco and institutional arrangements.

methodsThirty-two semi-structured interviews with 36 key stakeholders were conducted in Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands. These interviews were coded using the Framework Method.

resultsIn countries where health Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) have a relative policy dominance, tobacco consumption was predominantly framed as a health issue, NGO communities were well developed, the industry was largely absent in terms of production and manufacture, the health ministries played central roles in the policymaking process, and FCTC article 5.3 was strictly interpreted. In countries where the tobacco industry has a relative policy dominance, tobacco was framed as a private problem, NGO communities were absent or weak, the industry was well represented, the health ministries played subordinate roles in the policymaking process, and FCTC article 5.3. was only interpreted in terms of transparency.

conclusionThe ways in which tobacco consumption is framed in a country and the ways in which institutions are arranged correspond to the policy monopoly in place, with strong similarities across countries with the same policy monopoly.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingEuropeHumansQualitative ResearchStakeholder ParticipationTobacco UseCross-nationalFramingGroup-government relationshipsInstitutionsInterest groupsPolicy monopolyTobacco control

Identifiers

PMID31226963
PMCPMC6589028
OpenAlexW2950533364

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.