Smoke-free legislation and socioeconomic inequalities in smoking-related morbidity and mortality among adults: a systematic review
More details
Hide details
1
University of Malaya, Department of Community Dentistry and Clinical Prevention, Malaysia
2
University College London, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, United Kingdom
3
Public Health Foundation of India, Health Promotion Division, India
4
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, United Kingdom
5
Imperial College London, Public Health Policy Evaluation Unit, School of Public Health, United Kingdom
6
Public Health Foundation of India, India
Publication date: 2018-03-01
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2018;16(Suppl 1):A388
Download abstract book (PDF)
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Previous
systematic reviews examining the impact of smoke-free legislation (SFL) suggest
more beneficial impacts in higher socioeconomic status (SES) groups. However, these
have focused on associated changes in smoking behaviour
due to a paucity of studies examining health outcomes. This review includes
more recent evidence to assess the impact of comprehensive and partial SFL on
socioeconomic inequalities in smoking-related:
a) disease-specific morbidity and mortality and b) all-cause mortality among
adults.
Methods:
We searched
Medline and fourteen other databases up to September 2016. Studies in English, reporting
the differential impacts by SES of SFL on smoking-related morbidity and mortality among
adults (≥18 years) were eligible. Following data extraction, quality and risk
of bias among the included studies were assessed using the Cochrane EPOC and EPHPP criteria. Harvest plot and narrative methods were used to illustrate
either i)neutral effect of SFL on inequalities, ii) positive effect (greater
benefits among lower SES groups, iii) negative effect (greater benefits among higher
SES groups) or iv) mixed/unclear effect.
Results:
Eight studies (six
interrupted time-series and two before-after studies), all from high-income countries were included; five
studies examined the impact of comprehensive SFL and three the impact of
partial SFL. Implementation of comprehensive SFL led to either a positive
effect (three studies) or no effect (two studies) on socioeconomic inequalities
in health outcomes; partial SFL led to either no effect (two studies) or
unclear effect (one study). The choice of the socioeconomic
indicator may have had an important influence on findings. Except for the before-after studies, most studies
were judged to be high quality with a suitable study design.
Conclusions:
Comprehensive SFL potentially
reduces inequalities in smoking-related health
outcomes, partial SFL may not. All countries should implement comprehensive SFL
to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal targets to reduce premature NCD
mortality and inequalities.