ArticleHealth promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice2020
Using the intervention ladder to examine policy influencer and general public support for potential tobacco control policies in Alberta and Quebec.
Article in Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tobacco control policies discussed on social media: a scoping review.Tobacco control · 2026Article
- Assessing support for substance use policies among the general public and policy influencers in two Canadian provinces.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2024Article
- Assessing support for mental health policies among policy influencers and the general public in Alberta and Manitoba, Canada.International journal of mental health systems · 2024Article
- Public Opinion and Expectations: Development of Public Health Education in China After COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess general public and policy influencer support for population-level tobacco control policies in two Canadian provinces.
methodsWe implemented the Chronic Disease Prevention Survey in 2016 to a census sample of policy influencers (n = 302) and a random sample of members of the public (n = 2400) in Alberta and Quebec, Canada. Survey respondents ranked their support for tobacco control policy options using a Likert-style scale, with aggregate responses presented as net favourable percentages. Levels of support were further analyzed by coding each policy option using the Nuffield Council on Bioethics intervention ladder framework, to assess its level of intrusiveness on personal autonomy.
resultsPolicy influencers and the public considered the vast majority of tobacco control policy options as "extremely" or "very" favourable, although policy influencers in Alberta and Quebec differed on over half the policies, with stronger support in Quebec. Policy influencers and the public strongly supported more intrusive tobacco control policy options, despite anticipated effects on personal autonomy (i.e. for policies targeting children/youth and emerging tobacco products like electronic cigarettes). They indicated less support for fiscally based tobacco control policies (i.e. taxation), despite these policies being highly effective.
conclusionOverall, policy influencers and the general public strongly supported more restrictive tobacco control policies. This study further highlights policies where support among both population groups was unanimous (potential "quick wins" for health advocates). It also highlights areas where additional advocacy work is required to communicate the population-health benefit of tobacco control policies.
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.