Hefler Marita, Bianco Eduardo, Bradbrook Shane, Arnold Daniëlle, Dorotheo E Ulysses
Menzies School of Health Research, Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, Northern Territory, Australia
NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence on Achieving the Tobacco Endgame, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia.
Tob Control. 2022 Mar;31(2):328-334. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056570.
Tobacco control policy audacity can make radical ideas seem possible, and set in motion a 'domino' effect, where precedents in one jurisdiction are followed by others. This review examines tobacco control policy audacity from seven countries to identify and compare factors that facilitated it.
A targeted search strategy and purposive sampling approach was used to identify information from a range of sources and analyse key supportive factors for policy audacity. Each case was summarised, then key themes identified and compared across jurisdictions to identify similarities and differences.
Included cases were Mauritius' ban on tobacco industry corporate social responsibility, Uruguay's tobacco single brand presentation regulations, New Zealand's Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan proposals and 2010 parliamentary Māori Affairs Select Committee Inquiry into the Tobacco Industry, Australia's plain packaging legislation, Balanga City's (Philippines) tobacco-free generation ordinance, Beverly Hills City Council's (USA) ordinance to ban tobacco sales and the Netherlands' policy plan to phase out online and supermarket tobacco sales. Each case was one strategy within a well-established comprehensive tobacco control and public health approach. Intersectoral and multijurisdiction collaboration, community engagement and public support, a strong theoretical evidence base and lessons learnt from previous tobacco control policies were important supportive factors, as was public support to ensure low political risk for policy makers.
Tobacco control policy audacity is usually an extension of existing measures and typically appears as 'the next logical step' and therefore within the risk appetite of policy makers in settings where it occurs.
烟草控制政策的大胆举措可使激进想法看似可行，并引发“多米诺”效应，即一个司法管辖区的先例被其他司法管辖区效仿。本综述考察了七个国家的烟草控制政策大胆举措，以识别和比较促成这些举措的因素。
采用有针对性的搜索策略和目的抽样方法，从一系列来源获取信息，并分析政策大胆举措的关键支持因素。对每个案例进行总结，然后确定关键主题并在不同司法管辖区之间进行比较，以找出异同点。
纳入的案例包括毛里求斯对烟草行业企业社会责任的禁令、乌拉圭的烟草单一品牌展示规定、新西兰的《2025年无烟奥塔哥行动计划》提案以及2010年议会毛利事务特别委员会对烟草行业的调查、澳大利亚的平装烟立法、菲律宾巴朗牙市的“无烟一代”条例、美国比佛利山市议会禁止烟草销售的条例以及荷兰逐步淘汰在线和超市烟草销售的政策计划。每个案例都是既定的全面烟草控制和公共卫生方法中的一项策略。跨部门和多司法管辖区合作、社区参与和公众支持、强有力的理论证据基础以及从以往烟草控制政策中吸取的经验教训都是重要的支持因素，公众支持对于确保政策制定者面临较低政治风险也很重要。
烟草控制政策的大胆举措通常是现有措施的延伸，通常表现为“下一步合理举措”，因此在其出现的环境中处于政策制定者的风险承受范围内。
