Cargando…

In favour of tobacco control? Former smokers’ support for tobacco policies

BACKGROUND: Tobacco control (TC) in Sweden is being continuously strengthened. AIMS: The study aimed to examine attitudes towards different TC policies among former smokers, the difference between nicotine-free former smokers and those who use nicotine in the form of snus or nicotine replacement the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Sohlberg, Tove
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7434200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32934583
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1455072519853914
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Tobacco control (TC) in Sweden is being continuously strengthened. AIMS: The study aimed to examine attitudes towards different TC policies among former smokers, the difference between nicotine-free former smokers and those who use nicotine in the form of snus or nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), and whether different TC strategies tend to become more acceptable over time. METHODS: Respondents are part of a seven-year follow-up of former smokers in Sweden. Initially, 1400 respondents were contacted regarding participation and 705 answered a survey (response rate 50%). The present study used cross-sectional data on attitudes towards different TC policies and respondent’s level of support were measured on a 4-point scale. Analyses consist of percentage distribution of level of agreement, in total and between nicotine-free individuals and users of nicotine in the form of snus or NRTs, as well as logistic regressions in order to predict the odds for supporting the different policies. In addition, a percentage distribution of support for different policies introduced during different time-periods is shown. RESULTS: There is an overall support for smoke-free environments. Nicotine users are, however, overall slightly more opposed, especially to policies aiming at denormalising smoking. Public support is important for successful implementation but resistance can pass, and interventions tend to become more acceptable over time. CONCLUSION: While smoke-free indoor environments can be justified by scientific evidence of harm to others, bans against smoking outdoors might be experienced as intrusive. Policies need to rest on scientific arguments and be seen as appropriate actions, underlining the importance of information for successful implementations.