Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32469404›Full record

ArticleNicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco2020

Impact of UK Tobacco Control Policies on Inequalities in Youth Smoking Uptake: A Natural Experiment Study.

Philip Emeka Anyanwu, Peter Craig, Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi, Michael James Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Inequalities in Smoking and Quitting-Related Outcomes Among Adults With and Without Children in the Household 2013-2019: A Population Survey in England.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2022
    Article
  10. 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

4 authors.

Philip Emeka AnyanwuMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Peter CraigMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Srinivasa Vittal KatikireddiMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Michael James GreenMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/15/02Chief Scientist Office SPHSU13Chief Scientist Office SPHSU15Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Chief Scientist Office SPSHU13Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/13Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUK countries implemented smoke-free public places legislation and increased the legal age for tobacco purchase from 16 to 18 years between 2006 and 2008. We evaluated the immediate and long-term impacts of these UK policy changes on youth smoking uptake and inequalities therein. AIMS AND

methodsWe studied 74 960 person-years of longitudinal data from 14 992 youths (aged 11-15 years) in annual UK household surveys between 1994 and 2016. Discrete-time event history analyses examined whether changes in rates of youth smoking transitions (initiation, experimentation, and escalation to daily smoking or quitting) or their inequalities (by parental education) were associated with policy implementation. Parallel analyses examined smoke-free legislation and the change in legal age. We interpret the results as a combined effect of the two pieces of legislation as their implementation dates were too close to identify separate effects. Models were adjusted for sex, age, UK country, historical year, tobacco taxation, and e-cigarette prevalence, with multiple imputation for missing data.

resultsFor both policies, smoking initiation reduced following implementation (change in legal age odds ratio [OR]: 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55 to 0.81; smoke-free legislation OR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.82), while inequalities in initiation narrowed over subsequent years. The legal age change was associated with annual increases in progression from initiation to occasional smoking (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.50) and a reduction in quitting following implementation (OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.94). Similar effects were observed for smoke-free legislation but CIs overlapped the null.

conclusionsPolicies such as these may be highly effective in preventing and reducing socioeconomic inequalities in youth smoking initiation. IMPLICATIONS: UK implementation of smoke-free legislation and an increase in the legal age for tobacco purchase from 16 to 18 years were associated with an immediate reduction in smoking initiation and a narrowing of inequalities in initiation over subsequent years. While the policies were associated with reductions in the initiation, progression to occasional smoking increased and quitting decreased following the legislation.

Indexed as

Socioeconomic FactorsAdolescentChildElectronic Nicotine Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansMalePrevalenceSmoke-Free PolicySmokingSmoking PreventionSurveys and QuestionnairesTobacco Smoke PollutionUnited KingdomTobacco Smoke Pollution

Identifiers

PMID32469404
PMCPMC7593354

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.