HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Free to Access Full Text Full Text (PDF) web only appendix All Versions of this Article: tc.2007.023911v1 tc.2007.023911v2 17/4/230    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Thomas, S Articles by Worthy, G PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Thomas, S Articles by Worthy, G

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review

¹ MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK
² Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
³ PEHRU, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
⁴ Division of Public Health, University of Liverpool L69 3GB, UK
⁵ MRC Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK

Correspondence to:
Sian Thomas, c/o MRC Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK; sian.thomas{at}btinternet.com

Objective: To assess the effects of population tobacco control interventions on social inequalities in smoking.

Data sources: Medical, nursing, psychological, social science and grey literature databases, bibliographies, hand-searches and contact with authors.

Study selection: Studies were included (n = 84) if they reported the effects of any population-level tobacco control intervention on smoking behaviour or attitudes in individuals or groups with different demographic or socioeconomic characteristics.

Data extraction: Data extraction and quality assessment for each study were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second.

Data synthesis: Data were synthesised using graphical ("harvest plot") and narrative methods. No strong evidence of differential effects was found for smoking restrictions in workplaces and public places, although those in higher occupational groups may be more likely to change their attitudes or behaviour. Smoking restrictions in schools may be more effective in girls. Restrictions on sales to minors may be more effective in girls and younger children. Increasing the price of tobacco products may be more effective in reducing smoking among lower-income adults and those in manual occupations, although there was also some evidence to suggest that adults with higher levels of education may be more price-sensitive. Young people aged under 25 are also affected by price increases, with some evidence that boys and non-white young people may be more sensitive to price.

Conclusions: Population-level tobacco control interventions have the potential to benefit more disadvantaged groups and thereby contribute to reducing health inequalities.