Suchergebnisse

This paper reviews data published between 1990 and 2006 regarding smoking prevalence as well as individual and contextual influences on the smoking behavior among Romanian young adults. Highlights include a consideration of multiple levels of influence, from intra-individual factors, such as demographic and cognitive factors, to social influences, such as families and peers, to the more macro, societal/cultural levels of influence, including advertising and tobacco-related policies The source of data is represented by articles and short information published in journals or in electronic format, legislation, statistics and are illustrated with pictures. Based on these data, recommendations for future smoking prevention and reduction actions for Romanian youth are taken.

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that, on average, over 440,000 deaths and $76 billion in medical expenditures were attributable to cigarette smoking each year from 1995 through 1999. Reducing tobacco-related deaths and the incidence of disease, along with the associated costs, represents a significant public health challenge for the federal government. Most adults who use tobacco started using it between the ages of 10 and 18. According to a Surgeon General's report, if children and adolescents can be prevented from using tobacco products before they become adults, they are likely to remain tobacco-free for the rest of their lives. GAO was asked to provide information on federal efforts to prevent and reduce youth smoking. Specifically, this report describes (1) federal programs, research, and activities that aim to prevent and reduce tobacco use among youth, (2) the efforts of federal departments and agencies to monitor their programs, and (3) the coordination among federal departments and agencies in efforts to prevent and reduce tobacco use among youth."

Secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke (e.g., smoke residues found on walls and floors) are known to pose health hazards. Some landlords and cities have therefore established smoke-free policies for multiunit housing. The military is in effect the largest landlord in the United States, with approximately 630,000 units of housing. We reviewed the service-level tobacco control policies of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy and Marine Corps (which share a policy) for references to housing, to see if personnel are adequately protected from secondhand and thirdhand smoke. Policies covering most family housing and all housing for single enlisted personnel fail to fully protect residents from secondhand or thirdhand smoke. The current review of tobacco control policy in the military should recommend a consistent policy of tobacco-free living quarters.

Background Tobacco use is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Standardised tobacco packaging is an intervention intended to reduce the promotional appeal of packs and can be defined as packaging with a uniform colour (and in some cases shape and size) with no logos or branding, apart from health warnings and other government-mandated information, and the brand name in a prescribed uniform font, colour and size. Australia was the first country to implement standardised tobacco packaging between October and December 2012, France implemented standardised tobacco packaging on 1 January 2017 and several other countries are implementing, or intending to implement, standardised tobacco packaging. Objectives To assess the effect of standardised tobacco packaging on tobacco use uptake, cessation and reduction. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and six other databases from 1980 to January 2016. We checked bibliographies and contacted study authors to identify additional peer-reviewed studies. Selection criteria Primary outcomes included changes in tobacco use prevalence incorporating tobacco use uptake, cessation, consumption and relapse prevention. Secondary outcomes covered intermediate outcomes that can be measured and are relevant to tobacco use uptake, cessation or reduction. We considered multiple study designs: randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and experimental studies, observational cross-sectional and cohort studies. The review focused on all populations and people of any age; to be included, studies had to be published in peer-reviewed journals. We examined studies that assessed the impact of changes in tobacco packaging such as colour, design, size and type of health warnings on the packs in relation to branded packaging. In experiments, the control condition was branded tobacco packaging but could include variations of standardised packaging. Data collection and analysis Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. We used ...

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Standardised tobacco packaging is an intervention intended to reduce the promotional appeal of packs and can be defined as packaging with a uniform colour (and in some cases shape and size) with no logos or branding, apart from health warnings and other government‐mandated information, and the brand name in a prescribed uniform font, colour and size. Australia was the first country to implement standardised tobacco packaging between October and December 2012, France implemented standardised tobacco packaging on 1 January 2017 and several other countries are implementing, or intending to implement, standardised tobacco packaging. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of standardised tobacco packaging on tobacco use uptake, cessation and reduction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and six other databases from 1980 to January 2016. We checked bibliographies and contacted study authors to identify additional peer‐reviewed studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Primary outcomes included changes in tobacco use prevalence incorporating tobacco use uptake, cessation, consumption and relapse prevention. Secondary outcomes covered intermediate outcomes that can be measured and are relevant to tobacco use uptake, cessation or reduction. We considered multiple study designs: randomised controlled trials, quasi‐experimental and experimental studies, observational cross‐sectional and cohort studies. The review focused on all populations and people of any age; to be included, studies had to be published in peer‐reviewed journals. We examined studies that assessed the impact of changes in tobacco packaging such as colour, design, size and type of health warnings on the packs in relation to branded packaging. In experiments, the control condition was branded tobacco packaging but could include variations of standardised packaging. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. We ...

"Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update, a Public Health Service- sponsored Clinical Practice Guideline, is a product of the Tobacco Use and Dependence Guideline Panel ("the Panel"), consortium representatives, consultants, and staff. These 37 individuals were charged with the responsibility of identifying effective, experimentally validated tobacco dependence treatments and practices. The updated Guideline was sponsored by a consortium of eight Federal Government and nonprofit organizations: the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); National Cancer Institute (NCI); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); American Legacy Foundation; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF); and University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health's Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention (UW-CTRI). This Guideline is an updated version of the 2000 Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: Clinical Practice Guideline that was sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. An impetus for this Guideline update was the expanding literature on tobacco dependence and its treatment. The original 1996 Guideline was based on some 3,000 articles on tobacco treatment published between 1975 and 1994. The 2000 Guideline entailed the collection and screening of an additional 3,000 articles published between 1995 and 1999. The 2008 Guideline update screened an additional 2,700 articles; thus, the present Guideline update reflects the distillation of a literature base of more than 8,700 research articles. Of course, this body of research was further reviewed to identify a much smaller group of articles."- p. v ; 1. Overview and methods. -- 2. Assessment of tobacco use -- 3. Clinical interventions for tobacco use and dependence. -- 4. Intensive interventions for tobacco use and dependence. -- 5. Systems interventions--mportance to health care administrators, insurers, and purchasers. -- 6. Evidence and recommendations. -- 7. Specific populations and other topics. -- Appendix A. Financial disclosure for panel members, liaisons, and peer reviewers -- Appendix B. Helpful Web site addresses -- Appendix C. Coding information regarding the diagnosis of and billing for tobacco dependence treatment -- Appendix D. Key recommendation changes From the 2000 PHS-sponsored clinical practice guideline: treating tobacco use and dependence ; Michael C. Fiore (panel chair) . [et al.]. ; "May 2008." ; Available on the Internet as an Acrobat .pdf file (2.04 MB, 276 p.). ; Mode of access: Internet from the Office of the Surgeon General web site. Address as of 5/16/08: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/. ; Bibliographical references listed at www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/gdlnrefs.htm

© Association of Military Surgeons of the U.S. All rights reserved. Secondhand smoke and thirdhand smoke (e.g., smoke residues found on walls and floors) are known to pose health hazards. Some landlords and cities have therefore established smoke-free policies for multiunit housing. The military is in effect the largest landlord in the United States, with approximately 630, 000 units of housing. We reviewed the service-level tobacco control policies of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy and Marine Corps (which share a policy) for references to housing, to see if personnel are adequately protected from secondhand and thirdhand smoke. Policies covering most family housing and all housing for single enlisted personnel fail to fully protect residents from secondhand or thirdhand smoke. The current review of tobacco control policy in the military should recommend a consistent policy of tobacco-free living quarters.

Background Tobacco use is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Standardised tobacco packaging is an intervention intended to reduce the promotional appeal of packs and can be defined as packaging with a uniform colour (and in some cases shape and size) with no logos or branding, apart from health warnings and other government-mandated information, and the brand name in a prescribed uniform font, colour and size. Australia was the first country to implement standardised tobacco packaging between October and December 2012, France implemented standardised tobacco packaging on 1 January 2017 and several other countries are implementing, or intending to implement, standardised tobacco packaging. Objectives To assess the effect of standardised tobacco packaging on tobacco use uptake, cessation and reduction. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and six other databases from 1980 to January 2016. We checked bibliographies and contacted study authors to identify additional peer-reviewed studies. Selection criteria Primary outcomes included changes in tobacco use prevalence incorporating tobacco use uptake, cessation, consumption and relapse prevention. Secondary outcomes covered intermediate outcomes that can be measured and are relevant to tobacco use uptake, cessation or reduction. We considered multiple study designs: randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and experimental studies, observational cross-sectional and cohort studies. The review focused on all populations and people of any age; to be included, studies had to be published in peer-reviewed journals. We examined studies that assessed the impact of changes in tobacco packaging such as colour, design, size and type of health warnings on the packs in relation to branded packaging. In experiments, the control condition was branded tobacco packaging but could include variations of standardised packaging. Data collection and analysis Screening and data extraction followed standard Cochrane methods. We used different 'Risk of bias' domains for different study types. We have summarised findings narratively. Main results Fifty-one studies met our inclusion criteria, involving approximately 800,000 participants. The studies included were diverse, including observational studies, between- and within-participant experimental studies, cohort and cross-sectional studies, and time-series analyses. Few studies assessed behavioural outcomes in youth and non-smokers. Five studies assessed the primary outcomes: one observational study assessed smoking prevalence among 700,000 participants until one year after standardised packaging in Australia; four studies assessed consumption in 9394 participants, including a series of Australian national cross-sectional surveys of 8811 current smokers, in addition to three smaller studies. No studies assessed uptake, cessation, or relapse prevention. Two studies assessed quit attempts. Twenty studies examined other behavioural outcomes and 45 studies examined non-behavioural outcomes (e.g. appeal, perceptions of harm). In line with the challenges inherent in evaluating standardised tobacco packaging, a number of methodological imitations were apparent in the included studies and overall we judged most studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. The one included study assessing the impact of standardised tobacco packaging on smoking prevalence in Australia found a 3.7% reduction in odds when comparing before to after the packaging change, or a 0.5 percentage point drop in smoking prevalence, when adjusting for confounders. Confidence in this finding is limited, due to the nature of the evidence available, and is therefore rated low by GRADE standards. Findings were mixed amongst the four studies assessing consumption, with some studies finding no difference and some studies finding evidence of a decrease; certainty in this outcome was rated very low by GRADE standards due to the limitations in study design. One national study of Australian adult smoker cohorts (5441 participants) found that quit attempts increased from 20.2% prior to the introduction of standardised packaging to 26.6% one year post-implementation. A second study of calls to quitlines provides indirect support for this finding, with a 78% increase observed in the number of calls after the implementation of standardised packaging. Here again, certainty is low. Studies of other behavioural outcomes found evidence of increased avoidance behaviours when using standardised packs, reduced demand for standardised packs and reduced craving. Evidence from studies measuring eye-tracking showed increased visual attention to health warnings on standardised compared to branded packs. Corroborative evidence for the latter finding came from studies assessing non-behavioural outcomes, which in general found greater warning salience when viewing standardised, than branded packs. There was mixed evidence for quitting cognitions, whereas findings with youth generally pointed towards standardised packs being less likely to motivate smoking initiation than branded packs. We found the most consistent evidence for appeal, with standardised packs rating lower than branded packs. Tobacco in standardised packs was also generally perceived as worse-tasting and lower quality than tobacco in branded packs. Standardised packaging also appeared to reduce misperceptions that some cigarettes are less harmful than others, but only when dark colours were used for the uniform colour of the pack. Authors' conclusions The available evidence suggests that standardised packaging may reduce smoking prevalence. Only one country had implemented standardised packaging at the time of this review, so evidence comes from one large observational study that provides evidence for this effect. A reduction in smoking behaviour is supported by routinely collected data by the Australian government. Data on the effects of standardised packaging on non-behavioural outcomes (e.g. appeal) are clearer and provide plausible mechanisms of effect consistent with the observed decline in prevalence. As standardised packaging is implemented in different countries, research programmes should be initiated to capture long term effects on tobacco use prevalence, behaviour, and uptake. We did not find any evidence suggesting standardised packaging may increase tobacco use.

All recruits reporting to a regimental centre between 01 Jan 98 to 31 Mar 99 (n=1049), were administered a questionnaire about their own and their family's tobacco use practices. The prevalence of smoking among recruits was 43%, while that of smokeless tobacco use was 34.1%. There was a significant association between parental tobacco use and peer pressure on the tobacco habits of recruits. Knowledge about harmful effects of tobacco use did have a role in restraining the tobacco habit among recruits.

Executive Summary Introduction Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, responsible for over 400,000 deaths annually. In Nebraska each year, 2,400 adults die prematurely because of cigarette smoking.1 It is estimated that 45,000 Nebraskans now under the age of 18 will eventually die prematurely from cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking is responsible for $419 million of Nebraska's annual health care costs (representing approximately 7 percent of the state's annual health care costs including 12 percent of Nebraska's annual Medicaid expenditures), and smoking-related mortality results in over $400 million in forgone future earnings in the state per year. In 2000, the Nebraska State Legislature took an important step towards addressing the state's most significant public health problem by enacting Legislative Bill 1436, which appropriated $21 million from the Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund to support statewide tobacco prevention and cessation efforts. This funding enabled the Nebraska Health and Human Services System's (NHHSS) existing tobacco program, Tobacco Free Nebraska (TFN), to establish a comprehensive statewide tobacco program and greatly expand its efforts. The funding marked a turning point for the program, resulting in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) citing TFN as one of the model tobacco prevention and cessation programs in the nation. In 2002, the State Legislature took another important step towards eliminating tobacco use in Nebraska by passing a 30-cent increase in the state's cigarette tax. TFN's achievements as a model program have been previously documented in the 2001 and 2002 State Snapshots and through a variety of other reports developed by an independent evaluation team.2 These reports, including this State Snapshot, provide information on statewide progress in tobacco control efforts to NHHSS, national, state, and local policymakers, and other interested parties.