2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03642.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effect of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and smoking‐attributable deaths. Findings from the Netherlands SimSmoke Tobacco Control Policy Simulation Model

Abstract: Smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths in the Netherlands can be reduced substantially through tax increases, smoke-free legislation, high-intensity media campaigns, stronger advertising bans and health warnings, comprehensive cessation treatment and youth access laws. The implementation of these FCTC/MPOWER recommended policies could be expected to show similar or even larger relative reductions in smoking prevalence in other countries which currently have weak policies.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
46
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
3
46
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…These tobacco control interventions are likely to reduce smoking initiation, increase the number of quit attempts and/or use of effective treatments and therefore reduce smoking prevalence [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. For example, in the Netherlands, smoking prevalence decreased from 30.1% in 2001 to 25.9% in 2012 [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These tobacco control interventions are likely to reduce smoking initiation, increase the number of quit attempts and/or use of effective treatments and therefore reduce smoking prevalence [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. For example, in the Netherlands, smoking prevalence decreased from 30.1% in 2001 to 25.9% in 2012 [2].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2,22,23 The SimSmoke model has been validated for four states of the United States of America and more than 20 countries. [5][6][7][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]23,24 Table 1 summarizes policies and effect sizes based on expert panels and published literature reviews. 23 We provide upper and lower bounds for effect sizes based on variability estimates from our previous work.…”
Section: Effect Size Parametersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11 The purpose of this study is to determine the number of SADs averted as a result of the implementation of MPOWER policies. By capitalizing on the previously-validated SimSmoke model [5][6][7][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] to estimate the impact of MPOWER policies for reducing SADs, we employ a simple but powerful method to estimate the long-term impact of MPOWER policy implementation in the first three years.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, major anti-tobacco campaigns were launched on a national level [4]. In 2004, national smokefree legislation in the workplace was implemented, followed by smoke-free legislation in hospitals and nursing homes in 2005 and a smoke-free legislation in the hospitality industry in 2008 [5]. In 2011, reimbursement of smoking cessation support (SCS) by health insurance was implemented, which was cancelled in 2012 but reintroduced in 2013.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%