Search

Objective A systematic review to assess the equity impact of interventions/policies on youth smoking. Data sources Biosis, Cinahl, Cochrane Library, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Embase, Eric, Medline, Psycinfo, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index and tobacco control experts. Published January 1995 to October 2013. Study selection Primary studies of interventions/policies reporting smoking-related outcomes in youth (11-25 years) of lower compared to higher socioeconomic status (SES). Data extraction References were screened and independently checked. Studies were quality assessed; characteristics and outcomes were extracted. Data synthesis A narrative synthesis by intervention/policy type. Equity impact was assessed as: positive (reduced inequity), neutral (no difference by SES), negative (increased inequity), mixed (equity impact varied) or unclear.Thirty-eight studies of 40 interventions/policies were included: smokefree (12); price/tax (7); mass media campaigns (1); advertising controls (4); access controls (5); school-based programmes (5); multiple policies (3), individual-level cessation support (2), individual-level support for smokefree homes (1). The distribution of equity effects was: 7 positive, 16 neutral, 12 negative, 4 mixed, 1 unclear. All 7 positive equity studies were US-based: price/tax (4), age-of-sales laws (2) and text-messaging cessation support (1). A British school-based intervention (A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST)) showed mixed equity effects (neutral and positive). Most neutral equity studies benefited all SES groups. Conclusions Very few studies have assessed the equity impact of tobacco control interventions/policies on young people. Price/tax increases had the most consistent positive equity impact. There is a need to strengthen the evidence base for the equity impact of youth tobacco control interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: We updated and expanded a previous systematic literature review examining the impact of tobacco control interventions on socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. METHODS: We searched the academic literature for reviews and primary research articles published between January 2006 and November 2010 that examined the socioeconomic impact of six tobacco control interventions in adults: that is, price increases, smoke-free policies, advertising bans, mass media campaigns, warning labels, smoking cessation support and community-based programmes combining several interventions. We included English-language articles from countries at an advanced stage of the tobacco epidemic that examined the differential impact of tobacco control interventions by socioeconomic status or the effectiveness of interventions among disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. All articles were appraised by two authors and details recorded using a standardised approach. Data from 77 primary studies and seven reviews were synthesised via narrative review. RESULTS: We found strong evidence that increases in tobacco price have a pro-equity effect on socioeconomic disparities in smoking. Evidence on the equity impact of other interventions is inconclusive, with the exception of non-targeted smoking cessation programmes which have a negative equity impact due to higher quit rates among more advantaged smokers. CONCLUSIONS: Increased tobacco price via tax is the intervention with the greatest potential to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in smoking. Other measures studied appear unlikely to reduce inequalities in smoking without specific efforts to reach disadvantaged smokers. There is a need for more research evaluating the equity impact of tobacco control measures, and development of more effective approaches for reducing tobacco use in disadvantaged groups and communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: NHS stop smoking services are expected to play a key part in achieving the infant mortality and life expectancy health inequality targets in England by reducing smoking prevalence in deprived areas. This paper assesses the extent to which services have made a contribution to reducing inequalities in smoking between 2003-4 and 2005-6. Methods: Synthetic estimates of baseline smoking prevalence data were compared with national monitoring data about the numbers of smokers in receipt of services and the proportion who self report quilting at four weeks. The social distribution of service recipients and quitters was compared with estimates of smoking prevalence to assess impact on inequalities. Comparisons were made between officially designated disadvantaged areas (the Spearhead Group) and others. Results: Short-term cessation rates were lower in disadvantaged areas (52.6%) than elsewhere (57.9%) (p<0.001), but the proportion of smokers being treated was higher (16.7% compared with 13.4%) (p<0.001). The net effect was that a higher proportion of smokers in the most disadvantaged areas reported success (8.8%) than in more advantaged areas (7.8%) (p<0.001). Using the evidence-based assumption that three-quarters of short-term quitters will relapse within one year, the absolute and relative rate gaps in smoking prevalence between Spearhead areas and others are estimated to fall by small but for Health, University significant amounts from 5.2 and 1.215 (CIs: 1.216 to 1.213) to 5.0 and 1.212 (CIs: 1.213 to 1.210) between 2003-4 and 2005-6. Conclusion: NHS stop smoking services have probably made a modest contribution to reducing inequalities in smoking prevalence. To achieve government targets, however, requires both the development of more innovative cessation interventions for the most addicted smokers and action to ensure that other aspects of tobacco control policy make a larger contribution to inequality goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]