Organizational and financial analysis of Polish tobacco control programme in years 2000-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Funding tobacco control activities in Poland up to 2017 was legally based on the Art 4 of the Act on the Protection of Public Health against the Effects of Tobacco Use of November 9th, 1995. The Act established “programme outlining health, economic and social policies aimed at reducing tobacco use” which working name is The Programme on Reducing Health Consequences of Tobacco Smoking (PRHCTS). Material and Methods The subject of the analysis was the The PRHCTS in years 2000-2017. The documents describing the programme were compared with the guidelines for health policy program (HPP) developed by the Agency for Health Technology Assessment in Poland (AHTAPol) and the Article 12th of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Additionally, the financial analysis of spendings on the programme was performed. Results The PRHCTS in years 2000-2017 did not comply with the AHTAPol guidelines as well as with the Article 12th of the WHO FCTC. The programme did not have indicators which could stimulate effectiveness. Furthermore, the PRHCTS was heavily underfinanced. The spendings on tobacco control in recent years did not exceed 1% of value indicated in the law. Discussion Although Poland achieved significant reduction in daily smoking prevalence among people aged 15+ from 33% 1999 to 24% in 2015 the recent report of the Polish Supreme Audit Office states that PRHCTS does not result in change in smoking rate and does not prevent worsening in age structure of smokers. Conclusions The Tobacco Control Programme in Poland was not created, conducted and financed in an effective way. That could result in slower change in smoking rates and can be seen as a missed opportunity in fighting tobacco use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".