Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- List of Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- List of Boxes -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Understanding the Policy Process -- A Multi-Lens Approach -- Outline -- Research -- References -- Chapter 2: Dutch Tobacco Control Policy from the 1950s to the Present -- Emerging Health Concerns (1950-1970) -- Ambitious Policy Intentions (1970-1977) -- The Ministry of Economic Affairs Steps on the Brake (1977-1991) -- Policy Stagnation (1991-1994) -- Tobacco Control Proposals by Minister Borst (1994-1997) -- Drafting a New Tobacco Act (1998-2002) -- An Ambitious New Tobacco Control Policy Document That Never Made It -- Transposition of the EU Tobacco Product Directive into the Tobacco Act (2002-2003) -- Implementing the Tobacco Act (2003-2005) -- The National Program of Tobacco Control (NPT) (2005-2010) -- Parallel Interests and the Fight Over Smoking in Bars -- Failure of the NPT Programme -- Sudden Reversal of Tobacco Control Policy (2010-2012) -- Normalisation of Relationships (2012-2017) -- Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 3: The Tempo of Dutch Tobacco Control Policy -- Policy Cycles -- Adoption of Tobacco Control Policy in the Netherlands Compared with the United Kingdom -- The Netherlands Compared with Europe -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 4: The Social and Cultural Environment -- Cultural Values -- Social Norms -- Smoking Rates -- Public Support for Tobacco Control -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 5: Making Tobacco Control Policy Work: Rules of the Game -- Corporatism -- Consensus Seeking -- Consensus Seeking in the Cabinet -- Coalition Agreements -- Securing Long-Term Tobacco Control Policy -- Compromises Between Ministries -- Lobbying the Bureaucracy of the Ministry -- Lobbying Parliament -- Parliamentarians: Targets for Lobbyists -- Lobbying Through Different Venues.

tobacco control; policy process; advocacy coalition framework; multiple streams approach; tobacco act; ministry of health; dutch smoking or health foundation; self-regulation; policy stagnation; the netherlands; tobacco taxation; cultural values; social norms; smoking rate; public support; corporatism; deregulation; evidence based health policy; lobby; agenda setting

tobacco control; policy process; advocacy coalition framework; multiple streams approach; tobacco act; ministry of health; dutch smoking or health foundation; self-regulation; policy stagnation; the netherlands; tobacco taxation; cultural values; social norms; smoking rate; public support; corporatism; deregulation; evidence based health policy; lobby; agenda setting

INTRODUCTION: Article 5.3 WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) aims to prevent tobacco industry interference with public health policy. The degree of protection depends on several factors: the interpretation of Article 5.3 by governments; the presence of codes of practice; and the effectiveness of industry lobbying versus public health advocacy. We examine these factors with reference to the Dutch government's interpretation of Article 5.3. METHODS: We searched the Dutch Tobacco Industry Special Collection, part of the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents archive, containing more than 1100 Dutch government documents. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2012, under consistent pressure from the industry, an initial strict view of Article 5.3 gave way to increased contact with the industry. The industry tried to shift the governance of tobacco policy back to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Around 2010, Dutch public health advocates began to use Article 5.3. Efforts included naming and shaming government contact with the industry, parliamentary questions about industry-government contact, a report outlining how Article 5.3 should be observed and, most importantly, a court case. In response to this, the government produced a formal code of practice, which was used to prevent industry involvement in the development of a new National Prevention Accord. DISCUSSION: The Dutch government's initial decision not to codify Article 5.3 created an administrative environment in which health ministers' interpretation of Article 5.3 was able to shift according to their political beliefs. The findings support the recommendation that Parties to the FCTC take a strict approach and formally codify Article 5.3 to ensure effective implementation.

<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) stresses the importance of scientific research. We examined the differences between 31 European countries regarding quantity and focus of tobacco control research publications. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo were searched for peer-reviewed articles on tobacco, written by European authors, published between 2000 and 2012. For 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 we further identified the main focus of the publication. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The volume of European tobacco control scientific publications had almost doubled. Scandinavian countries had most publications per inhabitant, while Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia had relatively little research output. There was a smaller increase in publications about harm from tobacco, relative to publications about treatment, and education, and to publications about environmental interventions. In 2012, 49% of all publications were about health, while the total number of publications on environmental interventions was relatively small (10%). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Research output had almost doubled, in line with global trends, but is still unevenly distributed across Europe. Although we observed a shift in European publications away from the harm of tobacco towards protecting smokers and changing the environment, the field is still dominated by publications on smoking and health.

Aims To study the impact of implementing smoke-free workplace and hospitality industry legislation on smoking behaviour. Design, setting and participants A cross-sectional population survey from 2001 to 2008 (n approximate to 18 000 per year) was used to assess trends and seasonal patterns in smoking and quitting, and to examine whether changes could be observed after the workplace smoking ban in the Netherlands in 2004 and the hospitality industry ban in 2008. Measurements Outcome measures were smoking prevalence, quit attempts and successful quit attempts. Interactions with educational level (socio-economic status) and bar visiting (exposure to the hospitality industry ban) were tested. Findings The workplace ban was followed by a decrease in smoking prevalence (OR = 0.91, P <0.001), but the hospitality industry ban was not (OR = 0.96, P = 0.127). Both bans, especially the workplace ban, were followed by an increase in quit attempts and successful quit attempts: workplace ban, OR = 1.31, P <0.001; OR = 1.49, P <0.001; hospitality industry ban, OR = 1.13, P = 0.013; OR = 1.44, P <0.001. The workplace ban had a larger effect on successful quitting among higher-educated (OR = 0.35, P <0.001) than on lower-educated respondents (OR = 0.74, P = 0.052). The hospitality industry ban had a larger effect on quit attempts among frequent bar visitors (OR = 1.48, P = 0.003) than on non-bar visitors (OR = 0.71, P = 0.014). Conclusions A workplace smoking ban in the Netherlands was followed by more changes in smoking and quitting than a hospitality industry ban. The hospitality industry ban only appeared to have an impact on quit attempts, and not on smoking prevalence.

European countries vary widely in the development and implementation of effective tobacco-control programs and policies. Why some countries lag behind others is inherently a political matter. National-level policymakers struggle between the need to protect public health and the need to recognize economic and ideological considerations. Within this context, use of scientific evidence plays an important role in the policy making process. Articles 20 and 22 of the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC) oblige countries to develop and coordinate research on aspects of tobacco control and require of them to facilitate knowledge transfer and capacity building between countries. This paper considers various ways how EU and national policy makers may accomplish this. We conclude that progress in three areas is needed: 1) generation of more scientific evidence relevant for each country; 2) facilitation of policy learning between countries; and 3) building capacity and collaborations between researchers and tobacco-control advocates to bridge the gap from research to policy, especially in countries with weak tobacco-control infrastructures.

European countries vary widely in the development and implementation of effective tobacco-control programs and policies. Why some countries lag behind others is inherently a political matter. National-level policymakers struggle between the need to protect public health and the need to recognize economic and ideological considerations. Within this context, use of scientific evidence plays an important role in the policy making process. Articles 20 and 22 of the World Health Organisation's Framework Convention of Tobacco Control (FCTC) oblige countries to develop and coordinate research on aspects of tobacco control and require of them to facilitate knowledge transfer and capacity building between countries. This paper considers various ways how EU and national policy makers may accomplish this. We conclude that progress in three areas is needed: 1) generation of more scientific evidence relevant for each country; 2) facilitation of policy learning between countries; and 3) building capacity and collaborations between researchers and tobacco-control advocates to bridge the gap from research to policy, especially in countries with weak tobacco-control infrastructures.

Abstract Background Because of the magnitude of the global tobacco epidemic, the World Health Organisation developed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), an international legally binding treaty to control tobacco use. Adoption and implementation of specific tobacco control measures within FCTC is an outcome of a political process, where social norms and public opinion play important roles. The objective of our study was to examine how a country's level of tobacco control is associated with smoking prevalence, two markers of denormalisation of smoking (social disapproval of smoking and concern about passive smoking), and societal support for tobacco control. Methods An ecological study was conducted, using data from two sources. The first source was the Tobacco Control Scale (TCS) from 2011, which quantifies the implementation of tobacco control policies in European Union (EU) countries. Data on smoking prevalence, societal disapproval of smoking, concern about passive smoking, and societal support for policy measures were taken from the Eurobarometer survey of 2009. Data from Eurobarometer surveys were aggregated to country level. Data from the 27 European Union member states were used. Results Smoking prevalence rates in 2009 were negatively associated with a country's TCS 2011 score, although not statistically significant (r = −.25; p = .21). Experience of societal disapproval was positively associated with higher TCS scores, though not significantly (r = .14; p = .48). The same was true for societal support for tobacco control (r = .27; p = .18). The TCS score in 2011 was significantly correlated with concern about passive smoking (r = .42; p =.03). Support for tobacco control measures was also strongly correlated with concern about passive smoking (r = .52, p = .006). Conclusions Smokers in countries with a higher TCS score were more concerned about whether their smoke harms others. Further, support for tobacco control measures is higher in countries that have more of these concerned smokers. Concerns about passive smoking seem central in the implementation of tobacco control measures, stressing the importance of continuing to educate the public about the harm from passive smoking.

Background: Because of the magnitude of the global tobacco epidemic, the World Health Organisation developed the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), an international legally binding treaty to control tobacco use. Adoption and implementation of specific tobacco control measures within FCTC is an outcome of a political process, where social norms and public opinion play important roles. The objective of our study was to examine how a country's level of tobacco control is associated with smoking prevalence, two markers of denormalisation of smoking (social disapproval of smoking and concern about passive smoking), and societal support for tobacco control.

Methods: An ecological study was conducted, using data from two sources. The first source was the Tobacco Control Scale (TCS) from 2011, which quantifies the implementation of tobacco control policies in European Union (EU) countries. Data on smoking prevalence, societal disapproval of smoking, concern about passive smoking, and societal support for policy measures were taken from the Eurobarometer survey of 2009. Data from Eurobarometer surveys were aggregated to country level. Data from the 27 European Union member states were used.

Results: Smoking prevalence rates in 2009 were negatively associated with a country's TCS 2011 score, although not statistically significant (r = −.25; p = .21). Experience of societal disapproval was positively associated with higher TCS scores, though not significantly (r = .14; p = .48). The same was true for societal support for tobacco control (r = .27; p = .18). The TCS score in 2011 was significantly correlated with concern about passive smoking (r = .42; p =.03). Support for tobacco control measures was also strongly correlated with concern about passive smoking (r = .52, p = .006).

Conclusions: Smokers in countries with a higher TCS score were more concerned about whether their smoke harms others. Further, support for tobacco control measures is higher in countries that have more of these concerned smokers. Concerns about passive smoking seem central in the implementation of tobacco control measures, stressing the importance of continuing to educate the public about the harm from passive smoking.

Introduction: Little is known about the extent to which smoking restrictions are socially accepted in a country such as the Netherlands where smoking restrictions have been implemented and reversed several times. The current study assessed trends as well as factors associated with two indicators of social acceptance of smoking restrictions in the Netherlands: acceptance of smoking in public places and implementation of home smoking bans. Methods: We used data from the Dutch Continuous Survey of Smoking Habits (DCSSH) between 2005 and 2014 (n = 182 826). The DCSSH is a national population survey with a cross-sectional design in which respondents aged 15 years and older are surveyed weekly. Results: Acceptance of smoking in public places decreased for six out of eight included venues, with the largest decrease for smoking in restaurants. The decrease in acceptance was larger among younger respondents and smokers. Smoking on terraces was an exception: decrease in acceptance there was larger among older respondents and ex-smokers. Implementation of home smoking bans increased over time. Having implemented a home smoking ban was associated with being male, being younger, having a high socioeconomic status, and being ex-or never smoker. Conclusions: Social acceptance of smoking restrictions has increased in the Netherlands, despite a suboptimal implementation process of smoking restrictions. However, there is still potential for improvement as acceptance of smoking is still quite high for some public venues like bars. It is important to strengthen smoking restrictions in order to further denormalize smoking in the Netherlands. Implications: We examined the extent to which smoking restrictions are socially accepted in the Netherlands where smoking restrictions have been implemented and reversed several times. Acceptance of smoking in public places decreased and implementation of home smoking bans increased between 2005 and 2014. Social acceptance of smoking restrictions increased in the Netherlands despite a suboptimal ...

In 2011, the Dutch government reimbursed smoking cessation pharmacotherapy with behavioral therapy for quitting smokers. We investigate whether inequalities in the use of pharmacotherapy change and, if not, whether this is due to a relatively positive injunctive norm in lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups. A total of 75,415 participants aged ≥15 years from the Dutch Continuous Survey of Smoking Habits, 2009–2012, were considered with the following measures: SES (education/income), injunctive norm (mostly acceptable/neutral/mostly unacceptable), period (2011/all other years), and pharmacotherapy use (yes/no). The proportion of low SES smokers compared with high SES smokers making quit attempts with pharmacotherapy did not differ significantly. The injunctive norm of low SES smokers differed significantly from high SES smokers and nonsmokers of all SES levels. Low income smokers with mostly acceptable injunctive norms were significantly less likely to make quit attempts using pharmacotherapy than those with a neutral or less accepting injunctive norm. The significantly lower use of pharmacotherapy in quit attempts in low income smokers with a positive injunctive norm toward smoking may partly underlie the lack of uptake of reimbursed pharmacotherapy in low SES smokers.

Objective: In 2008, smoke-free legislation was implemented in hospitality venues (HV) in the Netherlands. We investigated how continuing smokers with a lower educational background respond behaviourally and psychologically to the legislation and the norm it communicates. Design: In 2010, 18 lower-educated daily smokers were interviewed. Transcripts were analysed with MAXQDA software. Theories of self-awareness and social in- and exclusion were applied to interpret findings. Results: Smokers had become more self-aware and the experience of a more negative norm surrounding smoking had made them reevaluate their smoking. Smokers had also become more self-aware of their own smoking, both in HV and in general. Feelings of increased social exclusion were reported. Participants dealt with the increased awareness and feelings of social exclusion in different ways depending on their evaluation of the smoking ban, changes in attitude towards own smoking, changes in HV patronage and changes in smoking behaviour. Conclusion: Theories of self-awareness and social in- and exclusion were useful in understanding consequences of a HV smoking ban on continuing smokers. Four different types of responses were identified, i.e. (1) actively trying to quit, (2) socially conscious smoking, (3) feeling victimised and (4) rejecting the norm. Implications for future smoke-free legislation are discussed.

Aim To develop a simulation model projecting the effect of tobacco control policies in the Netherlands on smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths. Design, setting and participants Netherlands SimSmoke-an adapted version of the SimSmoke simulation model of tobacco control policy-uses population, smoking rates and tobacco control policy data for the Netherlands to predict the effect of seven types of policies: taxes, smoke-free legislation, mass media, advertising bans, health warnings, cessation treatment and youth access policies. Measurements Outcome measures were smoking prevalence and smoking-attributable deaths. Findings With a comprehensive set of policies, as recommended by MPOWER, smoking prevalence can be decreased by asmuch as 21% in the first year, increasing to a 35% reduction in the next 20 years and almost 40% by 30 years. By 2040, 7706 deaths can be averted in that year alone with the stronger set of policies. Without effective tobacco control policies, almost a million lives will be lost to tobacco-related diseases between 2011 and 2040. Of those, 145 000 can be saved with a comprehensive tobacco control package. Conclusions 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.

BACKGROUND: As of May 2016, pictorial health warnings (PHWs) showing the harms of smoking were implemented in the European Union. After one year they had to be fully implemented. We studied changes in awareness of the health risks of smoking after implementation of PHWs among smokers from the Netherlands, whether the trend before the implementation changed after the implementation, and whether there were differences between subgroups. METHODS: We used survey data from six yearly waves of the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Netherlands Survey from 2012 to 2017. The number of participating smokers ranged between 1236 and 1604 per wave. Data were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) analyses. RESULTS: Indicators of awareness of the health risks of smoking that did not change between 2015 and 2017 were perceived susceptibility (β = 0.043, p = 0.059) and perceived severity (β = − 0.006, p = 0.679) regarding lung problems. Perceived susceptibility, however, was more pronounced between 2015 and 2017 than between 2012 and 2015(p value of interaction: p = 0.044). Noticing information about the dangers of smoking (β = 0.119, p < 0.001) and knowledge about the health risks of smoking (β = 0.184, p < 0.001) increased between 2015 and 2017. These increases were both more pronounced when compared to 2012–2015 (p values of interactions: p = 0.002 and p < 0.001 respectively). Compared to high educated smokers, low educated smokers (β = − 1.137, p < 0.001) and moderate educated smokers (β = − 0.894, p < 0.001) were less knowledgeable about the health risks of smoking in 2016 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing PHWs coincided with an increase in smokers' knowledge about the health risks of smoking. Dutch tobacco control policy and campaigns should focus on improving Dutch smokers' awareness of the health risks of smoking even more, especially among low educated smokers.