Impact of NCD Control Policies on change in smoking prevalence in the WHO European Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Implementation of tobacco control policies gained momentum in many countries in the first part of 2000s. We aimed to analyse changes in smoking prevalence in relation to national NCD control policies in the WHO European Region between 2000 and 2014 for men and women. Methods The smoking prevalence estimates for 2000 and 2014 were obtained from the WHO Global Report on Trends in Prevalence of Tobacco Smoking 2015. NCD policy score (NCDPS) was developed using the 2010 WHO Global NCD Country Capacity Survey (CCS) and WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2011 results. Using absolute change in smoking prevalence between 2000 and 2014, countries were dichotomized into low and high performing countries based on ≤ 10 unit absolute decrease in smoking prevalence as a cut-off point. Mann Whitney-U test was used to compare NCDPS between the groups. Logistic regression was used to analyse the association between NCDPS and change in smoking. R2 values indicated the variability explained in change in smoking prevalence by the NCDPS. Results Smoking prevalence decreased in general; the highest absolute decrease was observed among men in Denmark (23) and women in Norway (18). Mean NCDPS scores of low and high performance countries were not significantly different for men (77.0 vs 80.3, p = 0.74) and women (77.8 vs 83.6, p = 0.71). NCD Policy score explained only 1% and 3% of the change in smoking in men and women, respectively (B = 0.01, p = 0.54, R2=0.01; B = 0.03, p = 0.43, R2=0.03). Conclusions Smoking prevalence generally decreased in the WHO European countries. NCDPS was not associated with changes in smoking prevalence in men and women, suggesting a need for comparable measurement tool to reflect the extent of implementation, the level of restrictiveness and enforcement of policies in the countries. Key messages: Smoking prevalence generally decreased in the WHO European countries between 2000 and 2014. A simple NCD/Tobacco control policy score developed from the WHO Global NCD CCS was not associated with the decrease in smoking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".