Frontiers in public health · 2026
Post-policy evaluation lags of tobacco and nicotine product policies: a systematic review from the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aziz Huma, Hayes Andrea M, Fagbule Omotayo Francis, Ikpebe Ene, Peters Bukola
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examines the time interval between policy implementation and evaluation of behavioral results in tobacco control studies (evaluation lag) as well as reported estimates. Results can help policymakers avoid premature conclusions and make more informed decisions about policy effectiveness.
METHODS: We reviewed studies from 2010 onward evaluating the effects of policies implemented at national-level or across majority provinces on behavioral outcomes, including tobacco use, cessation attempts, and secondhand smoke exposure, in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Eligible studies were published in the English language. The search databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and government websites. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data. A third reviewer resolved conflicts. Study quality was assessed via the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist.
RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated policies across various time points ranging from 6 months to 1 year (n = 5), one to 2 years (n = 12), more than 2 years (n = 5) and multiple time points (n = 2). The policies evaluated included smoke-free (n = 4, 19.1%), retail-related (n = 14, 66.6%) and nicotine-related (n = 3, 14.3%). In the risk of bias assessment, 19 studies had low risk (90.5%) and two studies had uncertain risk (9.5%). Most of the smoke-free policies were evaluated earlier (within 6 months to 1-year). Most of the retail and nicotine- related policies were evaluated 1 year and above after implementation. Most of the studies showed positive results after policy implementation.
CONCLUSION: Policy evaluation lags vary by policy type with smoke-free policies more frequently evaluated earlier than other tobacco and nicotine control policies. These findings highlight the importance of identifying optimal evaluation periods according to policy type.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251175482, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420251175482).
METHODS: We reviewed studies from 2010 onward evaluating the effects of policies implemented at national-level or across majority provinces on behavioral outcomes, including tobacco use, cessation attempts, and secondhand smoke exposure, in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Eligible studies were published in the English language. The search databases included PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Google Scholar, and government websites. Two reviewers independently screened studies according to predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data. A third reviewer resolved conflicts. Study quality was assessed via the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist.
RESULTS: A total of 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated policies across various time points ranging from 6 months to 1 year (n = 5), one to 2 years (n = 12), more than 2 years (n = 5) and multiple time points (n = 2). The policies evaluated included smoke-free (n = 4, 19.1%), retail-related (n = 14, 66.6%) and nicotine-related (n = 3, 14.3%). In the risk of bias assessment, 19 studies had low risk (90.5%) and two studies had uncertain risk (9.5%). Most of the smoke-free policies were evaluated earlier (within 6 months to 1-year). Most of the retail and nicotine- related policies were evaluated 1 year and above after implementation. Most of the studies showed positive results after policy implementation.
CONCLUSION: Policy evaluation lags vary by policy type with smoke-free policies more frequently evaluated earlier than other tobacco and nicotine control policies. These findings highlight the importance of identifying optimal evaluation periods according to policy type.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251175482, identifier PROSPERO (CRD420251175482).