Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background An end date for smoking has been adopted in several countries and is now being discussed by governments all over the world. However, little is known about temporal changes in citizens’ support for a future smoking ban.
Aim To examine temporal changes in support for a future smoking ban and for increasing taxes on tobacco in Denmark, and to explore whether these changes differ across sex, age, educational attainment, smoking status and between smokers with/without intention to quit.
Method The study was based on two waves of ‘The Danish Capital Region Health Survey’ conducted in 2013 and 2017. The pooled study sample included 96 521 citizens aged ≥16 years old.
Results Public support for a future smoking ban increased from 30.6% in 2013 to 50.3% in 2017, whereas support for increasing tobacco taxes remained unchanged at 59%. Support for a future smoking ban increased significantly in almost all subgroups from 2013 to 2017: Support among daily smokers increased by 27% between 2013 and 2017. Support among never smokers was almost 2.63 times higher than among smokers in 2013 and increased further in 2017 (OR: 2013=2.63; 2017=5.13).
Conclusion This study indicates a readiness to support a future smoking ban and increasing tobacco taxes. Support for a future smoking ban has increased from 2013 to 2017 among both young people and adults. By 2017, about half of the population supported a future smoking ban and increasing tobacco taxes. Findings may help inform policy-making related to endgame strategies.
- end game
- public opinion
- prevention
- taxation
- socioeconomic status
Data availability statement
Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available. Data are stored at Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, The Capital Region, Denmark
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Due to the nature of this research, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available. Data are stored at Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, The Capital Region, Denmark
Footnotes
Contributors All authors contributed to the study design and critical review of the paper. CJL conducted the analyses.
Funding The project was funded by the Capital Region of Copenhagen. The Health Foundation, Denmark (an independent charity that funds research and development related to Health and social issues (grant ID 18-B-0355)) and the Danish Heart Foundation partly funded CP's salary during work on this paper. They were not involved in choice of research or any step of this study and will first be presented with the study when it is published.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.