You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Research paper
The immediate and long-term changes in support of tobacco display ban after its implementation in New Zealand
  1. Judy Li,
  2. Darren Walton
  1. Policy, Research and Evaluation, Health Promotion Agency, Wellington, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Judy Li, Policy, Research and Evaluation, Health Promotion Agency, PO Box 2142, Wellington 6140, New Zealand; j.li{at}hpa.org.nz

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051637

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.

    Four recent studies, two with particularly strong methodology, have assessed post-implementation support for tobacco display bans.1–4 The first found generally high support but no difference between Canadian smokers who lived in provinces that had or had not implemented a ban.1 In Norway, public support remained the same 1 year post-implementation as before the ban (29–32% of daily and 49–58% of occasional smokers).3 Our study assessed the immediate and long-term changes in support among smokers and recent quitters in New Zealand following implementation of a display ban on 28 July 2012. We assessed support for this ban immediately before (May–July 2012—Time 1), immediately after (August–October 2012—Time 2) and 1 year after the ban (July–September 2013—Time 3).

    Methods

    The New Zealand Smoking Monitor is a fortnightly telephone-based survey (n=120), and recruits respondents from an omnibus that has a representative adult sample. Respondents are maintained on a panel and interviewed up to six times. Those who drop out from the sample either …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors JL was responsible for the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of the data, and the drafting of this article. DW was responsible for the overall design of the survey and the drafting of this article.

    • Funding This work was supported by New Zealand Ministry of Health.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Health and Disabilities Ethics Committee.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.