Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Tobacco industry denormalisation is a key strategy recommended by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as it is associated with reducing smoking behaviours and positively influencing public and policymakers’ opinion towards tobacco control. However, studies of awareness of tobacco industry tactics among public health players and policymakers in low-income and middle-income countries are limited.
Methods We conducted an online survey of individuals who had been involved in tobacco control in Thailand. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between awareness of tobacco industry tactics and different attitudes towards tobacco industry and perceptions towards e-cigarettes, controlling for role in tobacco control and demographics among 441 respondents.
Results Of the respondents, 11.3% had never heard of any tobacco industry tactics, whereas 11.1% had heard of all tactics asked in the survey. Tobacco industry tactics which were less known by participants were intimidation (30.6%) and illicit trade (37.4%). Participants who were more aware of tobacco industry tactics were more likely to have negative attitudes towards the tobacco industry and e-cigarettes. Compared with active experts of the Provincial Tobacco Products Control Committee and provincial public health officials who work in tobacco control programmes, advocates who worked for civil society organisations in tobacco control were more aware of tobacco industry tactics and had less favourable perceptions of e-cigarettes.
Conclusion This study emphasises the importance of educating public health professionals and policymakers about tobacco industry behaviour, especially in the era of e-cigarettes.
- Tobacco industry
- Denormalization
- Electronic nicotine delivery devices
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.
Footnotes
X @ProfGlantz
Contributors RP developed the idea for the study, collected, analysed the data and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SG assisted with revising and refining the analysis and manuscript. RP is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.
Funding This work was supported by the Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University and the ThaiHealth Promotion Foundation (grant number 66-P1-0472), Thailand. The funding agencies played no role in study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing the report or the decision to submit for publication.
Competing interests There are no competing interests.
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.