Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39724224›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Challenges and opportunities in implementing and enforcing India's loose cigarette sales ban: A qualitative stakeholder analysis.

Mayank Sakhuja, Daniela B Friedman, Mark M Macauda, James R Hebert, Mangesh S Pednekar, Prakash C Gupta, James F Thrasher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Cost Input Estimation for City-based Implementation of Tobacco Vendor Licensing Policy in India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. 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.

Mayank SakhujaUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8688-1985
Daniela B FriedmanDepartment of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States of America.
Mark M MacaudaDepartment of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States of America.
James R HebertDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States of America.
Mangesh S PednekarHealis Sekhsaria Institute for Public Health, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Prakash C GuptaHealis Sekhsaria Institute for Public Health, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
James F ThrasherDepartment of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States of America.

Funding

NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP006401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSeveral Indian states have banned the sale of loose cigarettes, and India is considering a national ban. This study examines the perceptions of policymakers, implementers, and law enforcement officials regarding the implementation and enforcement of this ban.

methodsBetween May-October 2022, we conducted in-depth interviews with 26 key stakeholders involved in tobacco control in two Indian cities, Delhi (where the ban was not implemented) and Mumbai (where the ban was in effect). Participants included representatives from various government departments such as police, municipal corporations, FDA, health, and civil society organizations / NGOs such as Vital Strategies, World Health Organization, International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, and local NGOs. Interviews explored policy awareness, implementation and enforcement status, and factors influencing implementation and enforcement of the ban. Interview transcripts were organized in NVivo, and reflexive thematic analysis was conducted.

resultsIn Mumbai, awareness of the ban was poor among implementers and law enforcers, including FDA, municipal, and police officials, while it was higher among health department officials and NGOs directly involved in tobacco control. Participants from Mumbai expressed that the implementation and enforcement of the ban was poor and loose cigarettes were still widely available. Main barriers to policy implementation included unclear implementation guidelines, poor awareness among tobacco vendors, limited resources, and lack of stakeholder commitment for tobacco control. Participants from both the cities emphasized the need for a vendor licensing system, imposing hefty penalties, imparting health education, and a multi-sectoral approach for effective policy implementation and enforcement.

conclusionLimited awareness of the ban and continued sale of loose cigarettes highlight gaps in policy implementation and enforcement. Effective policy implementation and enforcement requires raising awareness regarding the policy, adopting a tobacco vendor licensing system, and establishing clear implementation guidelines involving a multi-sectoral approach.

Indexed as

Tobacco ProductsCommerceHumansIndiaLaw EnforcementQualitative ResearchStakeholder Participation

Identifiers

PMID39724224
PMCPMC11670967

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.