Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42480115›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of public health2026

From awareness to action: building monitoring capacity for tobacco and nicotine industry interference-experience from the JA PreventNCD project.

Taija Voutilainen, Silke Cnockaert, Viðar Jensson, Zala Jeras, Helena Koprivnikar, Anneli Sammel, Stefanie Vandevijvere, Hanna Ollila

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Taija VoutilainenFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, THL, Healthcare and Social Welfare, Kuopio, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-7899-6499
Silke CnockaertSciensano, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Viðar JenssonDirectorate of Health, Iceland, DoHI, Public Health Division, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Zala JerasNational Institute of Public Health (Slovenia), NIJZ, Analysis and Health Development Centre, Risky Behaviour Department, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Helena KoprivnikarNational Institute of Public Health (Slovenia), NIJZ, Analysis and Health Development Centre, Risky Behaviour Department, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-3339-8441
Anneli SammelEstonian National Institute for Health Development, TAI, Drugs and Addictions Department, Tallin, Estonia.
Stefanie VandevijvereSciensano, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Brussels, Belgium.
Hanna OllilaFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare, THL, Healthcare and Social Welfare, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8814-1021

Funding

European Union
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Industry interference remains a major barrier to effective tobacco control. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) Article 5.3 obliges Parties to protect public health policies from industry influence, yet systematic monitoring of interference is often lacking. The emergence of new nicotine products and actors further complicate implementation and monitoring. Within Joint Action PreventNCD, we assessed monitoring and information exchange practices related to tobacco and nicotine industry interference in five European countries (Belgium, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, and Slovenia). Partner organizations (n = 5) completed an online questionnaire (July-September 2024) and the responses were descriptively analysed. To supplement the questionnaire data, we continued and expanded the search for recent interference examples until January 2025, covering examples from 2019 to 2024 through a review of publicly available sources; these were categorized by known interference tactics. Although all partners acknowledged the importance of monitoring, most countries lacked protocols, designated entities, or registries for industry interference. While some disclosure measures existed, such as policies requiring disclosure of meetings with industry and potential conflicts of interest, comprehensive safeguards were rare. Interference examples underscored the need for stronger monitoring, as known interference tactics-lobbying, harm-reduction narratives, corporate social responsibility campaigns, and use of front groups-were consistently employed, particularly around regulatory blind spots and new nicotine products. Systematic monitoring of tobacco and nicotine industry interference is essential to safeguard public health policies under WHO FCTC Article 5.3. Building national capacity, fostering collaboration between governments and civil society, and using international benchmarking tools are important steps toward this goal.

Indexed as

NicotineTobacco IndustryConflict of InterestEuropeHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTobacco ControlNicotine

Identifiers

PMID42480115
PMCPMC13387598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.