Tobacco Control Strategies: What Worksdepts.washington.edu/tobacco/docs/Warner08.pdf ·...
Transcript of Tobacco Control Strategies: What Worksdepts.washington.edu/tobacco/docs/Warner08.pdf ·...
Tobacco ControlTobacco ControlStrategies: What WorksStrategies: What Works
Kenneth E. WarnerKenneth E. WarnerUniversity of Michigan School of Public HealthUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health
University of Washington University of Washington ––April 2, 2008April 2, 2008
SmokingSmoking……thenthen……
and nowand now……
ThenThen…… NowNow……
Adult Per Capita CigaretteAdult Per Capita CigaretteConsumption U.S., 1900-2001Consumption U.S., 1900-2001
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
YEAR
Nu
mb
er o
f C
iga
rett
es
MenMen
Women
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
YEAR
% C
UR
RE
NT
SM
OK
ER
S
Trends in cigarette smoking among adults aged>18 years, by sex - United States, 1955-1998
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
Year <12 years 12 years 13-15 years >=16 years
Per
cen
t
Trends in cigarette smoking amongTrends in cigarette smoking amongadults aged adults aged >>25 years, by25 years, byeducation- U.S., 1965-2002education- U.S., 1965-2002
Stages of culturalStages of culturalchange re smokingchange re smoking
1.1. Smoke everywhere; offer cigarette to othersSmoke everywhere; offer cigarette to otherswhen lighting up; ashtrays pervasive when lighting up; ashtrays pervasive (thru 1950s)(thru 1950s)
2.2. Smokers ask, as a courtesy, Smokers ask, as a courtesy, ““Do you mind ifDo you mind ifI smoke?I smoke?”” Nonsmoker Nonsmoker’’s polite response:s polite response:““Not at all.Not at all.”” (Ashtrays pervasive) (Ashtrays pervasive) (1960s)(1960s)
Stages of culturalStages of culturalchange re smoking change re smoking (cont(cont’’d.)d.)
3.3. Beginning of nonsmokersBeginning of nonsmokers’’ rights movement rights movementleads to nonsmoking sections of restaurants.leads to nonsmoking sections of restaurants.Smokers now ask Smokers now ask –– with sense of trepidation with sense of trepidation–– ““Do you mind if I smoke?Do you mind if I smoke?”” Increasingly, Increasingly,answer is answer is ““II’’d prefer that you dond prefer that you don’’t.t.”” (1970s)(1970s)
4.4. Smokers assume they should not light up inSmokers assume they should not light up ina frienda friend’’s home unless the friend has dones home unless the friend has doneso first; can ask if see ashtrays so first; can ask if see ashtrays (1980s)(1980s)
Stages of culturalStages of culturalchange re smoking change re smoking (cont(cont’’d.)d.)
5.5. Huge increase in homes with no-smokingHuge increase in homes with no-smokingpolicypolicy……including smokersincluding smokers’’ homes homes (1990s-on)(1990s-on)
6.6. Smoke-free workplace laws extended toSmoke-free workplace laws extended toinclude bars and restaurants include bars and restaurants (2000s)(2000s)
a.a. 12 countries entirely smoke-free workplaces12 countries entirely smoke-free workplacesb.b. ≈≈ 30 states entirely smoke-free 30 states entirely smoke-free (some with minor(some with minor
exceptions)exceptions)
What has producedWhat has producedthis major behavioral this major behavioral ––and culture and culture –– change? change?
U.S. anti-smoking campaignU.S. anti-smoking campaign Phase I Phase I (1964-early 1970s)(1964-early 1970s): Information &: Information &
persuasionpersuasion
Phase II Phase II (1973-present; (1973-present; ““phase II of phase IIphase II of phase II”” in in
2000s)2000s): Non-smokers: Non-smokers’’ rights movement rights movement
Phase III Phase III (late 1980s-?)(late 1980s-?): Comprehensive: Comprehensivetobacco controltobacco control
Adult Per Capita CigaretteAdult Per Capita CigaretteConsumption, 1900-1952Consumption, 1900-1952
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
YEAR
Nu
mb
er
of
Cig
are
ttes
End of WW II
Great Depression
Adult Per Capita CigaretteAdult Per Capita CigaretteConsumption, 1900-1954Consumption, 1900-1954
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950
YEAR
Nu
mb
er
of
Cig
are
ttes
End of WW II
1st Smoking-CancerConcern
Great Depression
Adult Per Capita CigaretteAdult Per Capita CigaretteConsumption, 1900-1963Consumption, 1900-1963
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
YEAR
Nu
mb
er
of
Cig
are
ttes
End of WW II
1st Smoking-CancerConcern
Great Depression
Adult Per Capita CigaretteAdult Per Capita CigaretteConsumption, 1900-1964Consumption, 1900-1964
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
YEAR
Nu
mb
er
of
Cig
are
ttes
End of WW II
1st Smoking-CancerConcern
1st SurgeonGeneral’s Report
Great Depression
Adult Per Capita CigaretteAdult Per Capita CigaretteConsumption, 1900-1973Consumption, 1900-1973
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
YEAR
Nu
mb
er
of
Cig
are
ttes
End of WW II
1st Smoking-CancerConcern
Fairness DoctrineMessages on TV
and Radio
1st SurgeonGeneral’s Report
BroadcastAd Ban
Great Depression
Adult Per Capita CigaretteAdult Per Capita CigaretteConsumption, 1900-2001Consumption, 1900-2001
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
YEAR
Nu
mb
er
of
Cig
are
ttes
End of WW II
1st Smoking-CancerConcern
Fairness DoctrineMessages on TV
and Radio
Non-SmokersRights Movement
Begins
Federal CigaretteTax Doubles
SurgeonGeneral’sReport on ETS
1st SurgeonGeneral’s Report
BroadcastAd Ban
MasterSettlementAgreement
Great Depression
Health consequenceHealth consequence
Since 1964, > 5 million premature deathsSince 1964, > 5 million premature deathsaverted in U.S. as a result of campaign-averted in U.S. as a result of campaign-induced decisions to quit smoking or not toinduced decisions to quit smoking or not tostart.start.
Greatest public health success of last 50Greatest public health success of last 50yearsyears
Greatest remaining burden of preventableGreatest remaining burden of preventabledeath and illnessdeath and illness
Typology of interventionsTypology of interventions(end user perspective)(end user perspective)
Information/Information/educationeducation
IncentiveIncentive Law/Law/regulationregulation
PreventionPrevention School health ed;School health ed;Truth campaign;Truth campaign;ad banad ban
Tax increaseTax increase Sales-to-minorsSales-to-minorsand PUP lawsand PUP laws
CessationCessation 1990 Surgeon1990 SurgeonGeneralGeneral’’s report;s report;warning labels;warning labels;ad banad ban
Tax increase;Tax increase;insuranceinsurancepremiumpremiumdifferentialsdifferentials
ProtectionProtectionfrom second-from second-hand smokehand smoke
1986 Surgeon1986 SurgeonGeneralGeneral’’s reports reporton ETSon ETS
Smoking ban inSmoking ban inworkplace,workplace,public placespublic places
PurposePurpose Producer / End userProducer / End user
Intervention effectivenessIntervention effectiveness
EffectiveEffectiveTaxTaxClean indoor air laws,Clean indoor air laws,
policiespoliciesCounter-advertisingCounter-advertisingAd bansAd bansComprehensive TCComprehensive TC
programsprograms
Not effectiveNot effectiveSchool health edSchool health edWarning labels Warning labels (New(New
ones?)ones?)
Insurance differentialsInsurance differentialsMinors possession,Minors possession,
use, & purchase lawsuse, & purchase lawsSales to minors lawsSales to minors laws
TaxationTaxation
Strongest researchStrongest researchbase of all tobaccobase of all tobaccocontrol (TC) policiescontrol (TC) policies
From public healthFrom public healthpariah to First Principlepariah to First Principleof TCof TC
Tax increases - ProsTax increases - Pros Overall price elasticity of demand Overall price elasticity of demand ≈≈ -0.4 -0.4
Approx. ½ quitting, ½ reducing cigs/dayApprox. ½ quitting, ½ reducing cigs/dayKids twice as responsive as adults; veryKids twice as responsive as adults; veryeffective deterrent to youth smokingeffective deterrent to youth smokingGenerates (lots of) tax revenue Generates (lots of) tax revenue ((““Doing well whileDoing well whiledoing gooddoing good””))
Politically popular Politically popular““Sin tax,Sin tax,”” with with ““redemptiveredemptive”” features features (especially if(especially iftied to youth smoking prevention)tied to youth smoking prevention)
Doesn Doesn’’t affect majority, especially upper SESt affect majority, especially upper SES Progressive health impact Progressive health impact
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1500
1700
1900
2100
2300
2500
2700
2900
3100
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Real cigarette prices & per capita consumption
US, 1970-2000
consumption
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Year
Federal cigarette tax rate & cigarette tax revenue in the US, 1960-2000
Cigarette tax rate
Tax increases - ConsTax increases - Cons
““Behavioral engineeringBehavioral engineering””
Desired neutrality of tax policy Desired neutrality of tax policy ((Here?Here?))
Increased incentive for smuggling Increased incentive for smuggling
Regressivity (equity issues) Regressivity (equity issues) Distinguish regressivity of overall tax fromDistinguish regressivity of overall tax from Progressivity/regressivity of tax Progressivity/regressivity of tax increaseincreaseEffects on continuing smokers among poorEffects on continuing smokers among pooreven if overall impact progressiveeven if overall impact progressive
Smoke-free workplacesSmoke-free workplaces
StrongStrongresearchresearchbasebase
Heart of TCHeart of TCmovementmovement
30 states30 statesnearly 100%nearly 100%smoke-freesmoke-freeworkplaces,workplaces,rests. & barsrests. & bars
12 countries12 countries
Smoke-free: evidence baseSmoke-free: evidence base
Substantial evidence on adverse healthSubstantial evidence on adverse healtheffects of second-hand smoke effects of second-hand smoke ((<<50,000 deaths/year)50,000 deaths/year)
Strong evidence that bans on smoking inStrong evidence that bans on smoking inworkplacesworkplaces…… Dramatically reduce workersDramatically reduce workers’’ exposure to SHS exposure to SHS (by 80-95%)(by 80-95%)
Increase quitting Increase quitting (3.8%; (3.8%; ~ 20% price increase or doubling of~ 20% price increase or doubling ofmedian state taxmedian state tax))
Decrease smoking among continuing smokers Decrease smoking among continuing smokers (3.1 cigs/day)(3.1 cigs/day)
Do not harm business in hospitality industry enterprisesDo not harm business in hospitality industry enterprises Reduce some business costsReduce some business costs
Counter-advertisingCounter-advertising
truth campaign, CAtruth campaign, CAand MA campaigns,and MA campaigns,& Fairness Doctrine& Fairness Doctrineads all documentedads all documentedto decrease smoking.to decrease smoking.
Requirements:Requirements:○ProfessionallyProfessionallyproducedproduced
○Well-fundedWell-funded○SustainedSustained
Advertising and promotionAdvertising and promotionbanban
Evidence strong but not conclusiveEvidence strong but not conclusive Best study: complete ban can reduce smoking Best study: complete ban can reduce smoking ≈≈ 6% 6% Partial ban ineffectivePartial ban ineffective
due to ability todue to ability tosubstitute other formssubstitute other formsof promotionof promotion
Comprehensive TC policiesComprehensive TC policies(state level)(state level)
Few studies; indicate small incrementalFew studies; indicate small incrementaleffect effect (over additive effects of individual interventions)(over additive effects of individual interventions)
Risk of bias of investigatorsRisk of bias of investigators Potential for synergistic effects of multiplePotential for synergistic effects of multiple
policiespolicies Potential for duplicative effects (sum > whole)Potential for duplicative effects (sum > whole)
School healthSchool healtheducationeducation
Some programs show Some programs show efficacyefficacy (impact with(impact withbest-practice)best-practice) but but……
None show None show effectivenesseffectiveness (impact in everyday(impact in everydayconditions)conditions)
Teachers not well trained nor interestedTeachers not well trained nor interested Competing demands on timeCompeting demands on time Relatively low school-board priorityRelatively low school-board priority Few resources devoted to programsFew resources devoted to programs ““BoosterBooster”” programs rare programs rare
Pack warning labelsPack warning labels
Old labels ineffectiveOld labels ineffective
New, Canadian-New, Canadian-style labels maystyle labels mayincrease intention toincrease intention toquit and, possibly,quit and, possibly,quittingquitting
Sales to minors & PUP lawsSales to minors & PUP laws
Sales to minors laws do not reduce youthSales to minors laws do not reduce youthsmoking unless very seriously enforcedsmoking unless very seriously enforced
≈≈ 95% compliance needed for major impact 95% compliance needed for major impact
PUP laws do not workPUP laws do not work(and generally are not even(and generally are not evenrecognized by youth or parents)recognized by youth or parents)
Objectives of tobacco controlObjectives of tobacco control
Prevent initiation Prevent initiation (children)(children)
Assist with cessation Assist with cessation (adult smokers)(adult smokers)
Protect from secondhand smoke Protect from secondhand smoke (nonsmokers) (nonsmokers)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harm reduction? Harm reduction? (smokers who don(smokers who don’’t quit)t quit)
Objectives as strategies: Youth-Objectives as strategies: Youth-oriented prevention campaignoriented prevention campaign
Benefits Benefits Nip problem in the budNip problem in the bud Maximize eventual health benefit Maximize eventual health benefit Political acceptability Political acceptability (paternalism appropriate for kids)(paternalism appropriate for kids)
Less industry opposition Less industry opposition
ProblemsProblems Ineffectiveness of many youth-oriented strategiesIneffectiveness of many youth-oriented strategies Long-term pay-off only; misses current smokers Long-term pay-off only; misses current smokers
Objectives as strategies: AdultObjectives as strategies: Adultcessation campaigncessation campaign
Benefits Benefits Maximize near-term health benefit Maximize near-term health benefit
ProblemsProblems Political opposition on philosophical groundsPolitical opposition on philosophical grounds More industry opposition More industry opposition Resources for individual cessation treatment Resources for individual cessation treatment Doesn Doesn’’t (necessarily) cut off flow of newt (necessarily) cut off flow of new smokers into system smokers into system
Objectives as strategies: CleanObjectives as strategies: Cleanindoor air campaignindoor air campaign
BenefitsBenefits Quick, substantial protection of nonsmokers Quick, substantial protection of nonsmokers Leads to more quitting among smokers Leads to more quitting among smokers Defines acceptable social behavior Defines acceptable social behavior
ProblemsProblems Political opposition on philosophical groundsPolitical opposition on philosophical grounds More industry opposition More industry opposition May not cut flow of new smokers into system May not cut flow of new smokers into system Doesn Doesn’’t reduce smoking t reduce smoking ““enoughenough””
Comprehensive tobacco controlComprehensive tobacco controlprogramprogram
BenefitsBenefits Addresses all issuesAddresses all issues Covers different smokers Covers different smokers’’ differing needs differing needs Maximum benefit Maximum benefit Synergies among interventions (?) Synergies among interventions (?)
ProblemsProblems Resources requiredResources required Political opposition on philosophical grounds Political opposition on philosophical grounds Industry opposition Industry opposition Uncertainty re best mix of interventions Uncertainty re best mix of interventions Duplicative effects (?) Duplicative effects (?) ((““anti-synergyanti-synergy””))
Ireland: a cautionary taleIreland: a cautionary tale
First country to haveFirst country to have100% smoke-free100% smoke-freeworkplaces, restaurants,workplaces, restaurants,& bars (2004)& bars (2004)
Pack of cigarettes costsPack of cigarettes costs>$9.00>$9.00
No cig. advertisingNo cig. advertisingpermittedpermitted
And yetAnd yet……
Ireland: a cautionary taleIreland: a cautionary tale
Smoking prevalence fell from 25.5% justSmoking prevalence fell from 25.5% justbefore smoke-free law (March 2004) tobefore smoke-free law (March 2004) to23.3% one year later.23.3% one year later.
A year later, A year later, ↑ ↑ to 24.5%!to 24.5%!
Dec. 2007, 24%Dec. 2007, 24%
16% of 12-17 year-olds smoke16% of 12-17 year-olds smoke
Ireland: a cautionary taleIreland: a cautionary tale
What explains difference between U.S. What explains difference between U.S. (with(withits relatively modest policies)its relatively modest policies) and Ireland? and Ireland?
Norms Norms
What can Ireland do?What can Ireland do? Media campaignMedia campaign Role modeling (athletes, music and movie stars Role modeling (athletes, music and movie stars ––
Think Bono!)Think Bono!)
Aggregate impacts of TC in USAggregate impacts of TC in US DramaticDramatic……but over timebut over time
Smoking prevalence Smoking prevalence ↓ ↓ by > ½by > ½
Per capita cigarette consumption Per capita cigarette consumption ≈≈ 1/3 of what it 1/3 of what itwould have been in absence of antismokingwould have been in absence of antismokingcampaigncampaign
> 5 million smoking-produced premature deaths> 5 million smoking-produced premature deathsaverted as a result of campaign, with averageaverted as a result of campaign, with averagebeneficiary gaining 15-20 years of life expectancybeneficiary gaining 15-20 years of life expectancy
How did this happen?How did this happen?
Resulted from combination ofResulted from combination of public education/information campaignpublic education/information campaign push for smoke-free air policies and lawspush for smoke-free air policies and laws use of extrinsic + intrinsic motivationsuse of extrinsic + intrinsic motivations focus on youth smoking prevention, adultfocus on youth smoking prevention, adult
quitting quitting (aided, slightly, by cessation treatments)(aided, slightly, by cessation treatments),,and protection of rights of nonsmokersand protection of rights of nonsmokers
Relied upon norm changeRelied upon norm change
Where do we go from here?Where do we go from here?Likely near-future directionsLikely near-future directions More states go smoke-freeMore states go smoke-free
Within 5 years or so, nearly all states willWithin 5 years or so, nearly all states willbe smoke-freebe smoke-free
Federal cigarette excise tax Federal cigarette excise tax ↑ ↑ to $1-2to $1-2per packper pack (from $0.39 now); (from $0.39 now); state taxes state taxes ↑↑
U.S. smoking prevalence U.S. smoking prevalence ↓ ↓ to 14.5-17%to 14.5-17%by 2020 by 2020 (now 20.8%)(now 20.8%)
More emphasis on harm reduction??More emphasis on harm reduction??
Generalizable Generalizable lessonslessons Most powerful drivers of health behaviorMost powerful drivers of health behavior
change are those that change normschange are those that change norms Smoke-free policies/lawsSmoke-free policies/laws Anti-smoking media campaignsAnti-smoking media campaigns Exception: taxException: tax
Process of social (and norm) change, asProcess of social (and norm) change, asillustrated by tobacco control story, involvesillustrated by tobacco control story, involves
Info/ed first, understood and acted upon by SES eliteInfo/ed first, understood and acted upon by SES elite Elites Elites –– most politically enfranchised most politically enfranchised –– lobby for policy lobby for policy
changeschanges Middle and lower SES respond to social pressuresMiddle and lower SES respond to social pressures
and environmental changes (smoke-free laws, higherand environmental changes (smoke-free laws, higherprices, antismoking media campaigns)prices, antismoking media campaigns)
Generalizable lessons Generalizable lessons (cont(cont’’d.)d.)
Utilize multiple intervention typesUtilize multiple intervention types Info/education; incentives; law/regulationInfo/education; incentives; law/regulation
Viewed from short-term perspective,Viewed from short-term perspective,creating cultural and behavioral change iscreating cultural and behavioral change isarduous and frustrating; arduous and frustrating; ““systemsystem””, and, andindividuals, often seem non-responsiveindividuals, often seem non-responsive
Viewed over long haul, potential for changeViewed over long haul, potential for changeis enormousis enormous (even mind-boggling)(even mind-boggling)
What will it take to continueWhat will it take to continuemaking substantial progress?making substantial progress?
CreativityCreativity
EnergyEnergy
Politically sophisticatedPolitically sophisticatedadvocacyadvocacy
ResourcesResources
LeadershipLeadership