Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38886052›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2025

Support for banning sale of smoked tobacco products among adults who smoke: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys (2018-2022).

Michael Le Grande, Ron Borland, Shannon Gravely, Michael Cummings, Ann McNeill, Hua H Yong, Coral E Gartner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Michael Le GrandeMelbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, The University of Melbourne Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia mlegrande@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5902-6131
Ron BorlandMelbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, The University of Melbourne Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Shannon GravelyDepartment of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-5224-9105
Michael CummingsPsychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7103-7017
Ann McNeillUK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6223-4000
Hua H YongDepartment of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8167-6173
Coral E GartnerSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland Faculty of Medicine, Herston, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6651-8035

Funding

Vaporized Nicotine Product Initiation Among Youth in the US, Canada, and England: Methods to Predict Uptake and Policy EfficacyP01CA200512 · NCI · MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA · PI FONG, GEOFFREY T · 2016 to 2025
$25.3M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA200512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany people continue to smoke despite strong policies to deter use, thus stronger regulatory measures may be required. In four high-income countries, we examined whether people who smoke would support a total ban on smoked tobacco products under two differing policy scenarios.

methodsData were from 14 363 adults (≥18) who smoked cigarettes (≥monthly) and participated in at least one of the 2018, 2020 or 2022 International Tobacco Control Four Country Smoking and Vaping Surveys in Australia, Canada, England and the USA. In 2018, respondents were asked whether they would support a law that totally bans smoked tobacco if the government provides smoking cessation assistance (Cessation Assistance scenario). In 2020 and 2022, respondents were asked a slightly different question as to whether they would support a law that totally bans smoked tobacco if the government encourages people who smoke to use alternative nicotine products like vaping products and nicotine replacement products instead (substitution scenario). Responses (support vs oppose/don't know) were estimated on weighted data.

resultsSupport was greater for the cessation assistance scenario (2018, 36.6%) than the nicotine substitution scenario (2020, 26.9%; 2022, 26.3%, both p<0.0001). In the longitudinal analysis, there was a significant scenario by country interaction effect with lower support in Canada, the USA and Australia under the substitution scenario than in the cessation scenario, but equivalent levels in England under both scenarios. The strongest correlates of support under both scenarios were planning to quit smoking within 6 months, wanting to quit smoking 'a lot' and recent use of nicotine replacement therapy.

conclusionsOpposition to banning smoked tobacco predominates among people who smoke, but less with a cessation assistance scenario than one encouraging nicotine substitution. Wanting to quit a lot was the strongest indicator of support.

Indexed as

CommerceSmokersSmokingSmoking CessationTobacco ProductsVapingAdolescentAdultAustraliaCanadaEnglandFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCessationEnd gameNicotinePublic policy

Identifiers

PMID38886052
PMCPMC11649860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.