You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Systematic review
Tobacco endgame and priority populations: a scoping review
  1. Cheneal Puljević1,
  2. Leah Feulner2,
  3. Maria Hobbs3,
  4. Daniel Erku4,
  5. Billie Bonevski1,5,
  6. Catherine Segan6,
  7. Amanda Baker7,
  8. Marita Hefler1,8,
  9. Ara Cho1,
  10. Coral Gartner1
  1. 1The NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4Menzies Health Institute, Centre for Applied Health Economics, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  5. 5College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
  6. 6Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  7. 7Hunter Medical Research Institute, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
  8. 8Wellbeing and Preventable Chronic Diseases Division, Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Prof Coral Gartner, The NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, QLD 4006, Australia; c.gartner{at}uq.edu.au

Abstract

Aim To summarise the research literature on the impacts or perceptions of policies to end tobacco use at a population level (ie, tobacco endgame policies) among people from eight priority population groups (experiencing mental illness, substance use disorders, HIV, homelessness, unemployment or low incomes, who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or intersex (LGBTQI+) or who have experienced incarceration).

Methods Guided by JBI Scoping Review Methodology, we searched six databases for original research examining the impacts or perceptions of 12 tobacco endgame policies among eight priority populations published since 2000. We report the results according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.

Results Of the 18 included studies, one described perceptions of five endgame policies among people on low incomes in Aotearoa (New Zealand), and 17 focused on the effectiveness or impacts of a very low nicotine content (VLNC) cigarette standard among people experiencing mental illness (n=14), substance use disorders (n=8), low incomes (n=6), unemployment (n=1) or who identify as LGBTQI+ (n=1) in the USA. These studies provide evidence that VLNC cigarettes can reduce tobacco smoking, cigarette cravings, nicotine withdrawal and nicotine dependence among these populations.

Conclusions Most of the tobacco endgame literature related to these priority populations focuses on VLNC cigarettes. Identified research gaps include the effectiveness of endgame policies for reducing smoking, impacts (both expected and unexpected) and policy perceptions among these priority populations.

  • End game
  • Priority/special populations
  • Co-substance use
  • Public policy

Data availability statement

All data are from published sources. Some included publications are available in open access format (open access journal or open access author archived version in institutional repository). However, others may only be available via subscription-based journals.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2022-057715

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data are from published sources. Some included publications are available in open access format (open access journal or open access author archived version in institutional repository). However, others may only be available via subscription-based journals.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @ChenealPuljevic, @m_hef, @Ara_JCho, @CoralGartner

    • Contributors Study conceptualisation: CG, BB, AB, CP, CS, MHe. Literature searches: LF and CP. Article screening: LF, MHo, CP, DE. Drafting of manuscript: CP, LF, MHo. Editing of manuscript and approval of final version for publication: CG, BB, AB, CP, CS, MHe, AC, DE, LF, MHo. CG is guarantor for the manuscript.

    • Funding This research was funded by an NHMRC Centres of Research Excellence Grant (GNT 1198301).

    • 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.