Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 2030—A Program to Accelerate the Implementation of World Health Organization Framework Convention for Tobacco Control in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) 2030 Program (2017-2021) was launched to accelerate World Health Organization (WHO) FCTC implementation in 15 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We evaluated the Program in six domains: Governance; Smoke-Free Policies; Taxation; Packaging and Health Warnings; Tobacco Advertising, Promotion, and Sponsorship (TAPS) bans; and International and Regional Cooperation. AIMS AND METHODS: Following a mixed-methods design, we surveyed (June-September 2020) FCTC focal persons in 14 of the 15 countries, to understand the Program's financial and technical inputs and progress made in each of the six domains. The data were coded in terms of inputs (financial = 1, technical = 1, or both = 2) and progress (none = 1, some = 2, partial = 3, or strong = 4) and a correlation was computed between the inputs and progress scores for each domain. We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in five countries. We triangulated between the survey and interview findings. RESULTS: FCTC 2030 offered substantial financial and technical inputs, responsive to country needs, across all six domains. There was a high positive correlation between technical inputs and progress in five of the six domains, ranging from r = 0.61 for taxation (p < .05) to r = 0.91 and for smoke-free policies (p < .001). The interviews indicated that the Program provided timely and relevant evidence and created opportunities for influencing tobacco control debates. CONCLUSIONS: The FCTC 2030 Program might have led to variable, but significant progress in advancing FCTC implementation in the 15 countries. As expected, much of the progress was in augmenting existing structures and resources for FCTC implementation. The resulting advances are likely to lead to further progress in FCTC policy implementation. IMPLICATIONS: What this study adds: In many LMICs, WHO FCTC policies are not in place; and even when enshrined in law, they are poorly enforced. It is not clear how financial and technical assistance to high tobacco-burden LMICs can most effectively accelerate the implementation of WHO FCTC policies and offer value for money. Bespoke and responsive assistance, both financial and technical, to LMICs aimed at accelerating the implementation of WHO FCTC policies are likely to lead to progress in tobacco control.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".