Search

Background: Ethiopia enacted a comprehensive tobacco control law in 2019, which bans tobacco advertising and promotion activities. However, compliance with these laws at points-of-sale (PoS) has not been studied, resulting in a lack of research evidence on how the regulations are implemented. The purpose of the study was to assess compliance with tobacco advertising and promotion laws at PoS in 10 cities in Ethiopia. Methods: Multi-stage cluster sampling was used to select 1468 PoS (supermarkets, minimarkets, merchandise stores, regular shops, permanent kiosks, khat shops, street vendors, and food and drink wholesalers). Data were collected using standardized observational checklists. Tobacco advertising and promotion indicators were used to compute indoor and outdoor compliance. Poisson regression models with log link function and robust variance were used to assess factors associated with open display of cigarette packages and indoor non-compliance. Results: The average indoor compliance rate was 92.9% (95% CI:92.3–93.5). Supermarkets had the highest compliance (99.7%), while permanent kiosks showed the lowest compliance (89.8%). The highest average indoor compliance was observed at PoS in Addis Ababa (98.0%). About 60% of PoS were fully compliant in indoors. Indoor open display of cigarette packages was prevalent (32.5%, 95% CI:30.0-35.1). The average outdoor compliance was 99.6% (95% CI:99.5–99.7). Outdoor full compliance was 96.5%. Open display of cigarettes was significantly higher in permanent kiosks (adjusted prevalence ratio (adjPR) 6.73; 95% CI: 3.96–11.42), regular shops (adjPR 5.16; 95% CI: 3.05–8.75), and khat shops (adjPR 2.06; 95% CI: 1.11–3.83), while indoor non-compliance was significantly higher in these same types of PoS. Conclusions: While outdoor compliance rates were relatively high, the lower indoor compliance rates particularly due to the high prevalence of open cigarette package displays indicates a major area for improvement in enforcing anti-tobacco advertising and promotion laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction We studied the change in affordability of tobacco products, an important determinant of tobacco use, across the different socio-economic status (SES) in India. Aims and Methods We calculated affordability in the form of relative income price (RIP-cost of tobacco products relative to income) for the years 2011–2012 and 2018–2019 using three different denominators, that is per capita gross domestic product (GDP) and net state domestic product at national and state levels, respectively; monthly per capita consumer expenditure (MPCE); and individual wages. We investigated RIP for cigarettes, bidis, and smokeless tobacco (SLT) across different SES groups (caste groups, type of employment, and education). Results RIP increased marginally for cigarettes, bidis and remained almost constant for SLT across casual workers. However, when RIP was adjusted with SES variables, there was no significant change (p >.05) in the affordability of products for casual workers in the year 2018–2019 as compared to 2011–2012. For regular workers, cigarettes and bidis became marginally less affordable (β < 1), whereas affordability remained constant for SLT. All products became more affordable for backward caste groups within regular workers. When RIP was calculated using MPCE all tobacco products became less affordable in the year 2018–2019. However, after adjusting for SES variables SLT reported no change in affordability. There was a marginal increase in affordability for all products when RIP was calculated with GDP. Conclusions Although implementation of GST has increased the price of tobacco products, it is still not sufficient to reduce the affordability of tobacco products, particularly SLT and especially for the lower SES group. Implications Tobacco use and economic disadvantage conditions of the population are intricately linked. Affordability of tobacco products is influenced by socio-economic indicators like age, sex, income, education, etc. The literature measuring the affordability of tobacco products across different SES groups is scant in India. Additionally, existing literature measures affordability of tobacco products based on per capita GDP as a proxy for income. This is the first study in Indian context to report the change in affordability of tobacco products across different SES groups after adjusting for SES indicators, using individual-level income data. We have calculated the change in affordability of tobacco products between the year 2011–2012 and 2018–2019 using GDP, household income, and individual wages as a proxy for income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of tobacco use among people living with HIV (PLWH) is up to four times higher than in the general population. Unfortunately, tobacco use increases the risk of progression to AIDS and death. Individual- and group-level interventions, and system-change interventions that are effective in helping PLWH stop using tobacco can markedly improve the health and quality of life of this population. However, clear evidence to guide policy and practice is lacking, which hinders the integration of tobacco use cessation interventions into routine HIV care. This is an update of a review that was published in 2016. We include 11 new studies., Objectives: To assess the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation among people living with HIV. To compare the benefits, harms and tolerability of interventions for tobacco use cessation that are tailored to the needs of people living with HIV with that of non-tailored cessation interventions., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO in December 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individual-/group-level behavioural or pharmacological interventions, or both, for tobacco use cessation, delivered directly to PLWH aged 18 years and over, who use tobacco. We also included RCTs, quasi-RCTs, other non-randomised controlled studies (e.g. controlled before and after studies), and interrupted time series studies of system-change interventions for tobacco use cessation among PLWH. For system-change interventions, participants could be PLWH receiving care, or staff working in healthcare settings and providing care to PLWH; but studies where intervention delivery was by research personnel were excluded. For both individual-/group-level interventions, and system-change interventions, any comparator was eligible., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods, and used GRADE to assess certainty of the evidence. The primary measure of benefit was tobacco use cessation at a minimum of six months. Primary measures for harm were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured quit attempts or quit episodes, the receipt of a tobacco use cessation intervention, quality of life, HIV viral load, CD4 count, and the incidence of opportunistic infections., Main Results: We identified 17 studies (16 RCTs and one non-randomised study) with a total of 9959 participants; 11 studies are new to this update. Nine studies contributed to meta-analyses (2741 participants). Fifteen studies evaluated individual-/group-level interventions, and two evaluated system-change interventions. Twelve studies were from the USA, two from Switzerland, and there were single studies for France, Russia and South Africa. All studies focused on cigarette smoking cessation. All studies received funding from independent national- or institutional-level funding. Three studies received study medication free of charge from a pharmaceutical company. Of the 16 RCTs, three were at low risk of bias overall, five were at high risk, and eight were at unclear risk. Behavioural support or system-change interventions versus no or less intensive behavioural support Low-certainty evidence (7 studies, 2314 participants) did not demonstrate a clear benefit for tobacco use cessation rates in PLWH randomised to receive behavioural support compared with brief advice or no intervention: risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.42, with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 10% (n = 108/1121) in the control group and 11% (n = 127/1193) in the intervention group. There was no evidence of an effect on tobacco use cessation on system-change interventions: calling the quitline and transferring the call to the patient whilst they are still in hospital ('warm handoff') versus fax referral (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.76 to 13.99; 1 study, 25 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the studies in this comparison assessed SAE. Pharmacological interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or another pharmacotherapy Moderate-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) suggested that varenicline may help more PLWH to quit smoking than placebo (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.62) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Abstinence at six months or more was 7% (n = 14/215) in the placebo control group and 13% (n = 27/212) in the varenicline group. There was no evidence of intervention effects from individual studies on behavioural support plus nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus brief advice (RR 8.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 126.67; 15 participants; very low-certainty evidence), behavioural support plus NRT versus behavioural support alone (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.36; 560 participants; low-certainty evidence), varenicline versus NRT (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.83; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and cytisine versus NRT (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.11; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence (2 studies, 427 participants) did not detect a difference between varenicline and placebo in the proportion of participants experiencing SAEs (8% (n = 17/212) versus 7% (n = 15/215), respectively; RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.22) with no evidence of heterogeneity. Low-certainty evidence from one study indicated similar SAE rates between behavioural support plus NRT and behavioural support only (1.8% (n = 5/279) versus 1.4% (n = 4/281), respectively; RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.34 to 4.64). No studies assessed SAEs for the following: behavioural support plus NRT versus brief advice; varenicline versus NRT and cytisine versus NRT., Authors' Conclusions: There is no clear evidence to support or refute the use of behavioural support over brief advice, one type of behavioural support over another, behavioural support plus NRT over behavioural support alone or brief advice, varenicline over NRT, or cytisine over NRT for tobacco use cessation for six months or more among PLWH. Nor is there clear evidence to support or refute the use of system-change interventions such as warm handoff over fax referral, to increase tobacco use cessation or receipt of cessation interventions among PLWH who use tobacco. However, the results must be considered in the context of the small number of studies included. Varenicline likely helps PLWH to quit smoking for six months or more compared to control. We did not find evidence of difference in SAE rates between varenicline and placebo, although the certainty of the evidence is low., (Copyright © 2024 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a complex behavioural intervention, ProLife, on tuberculosis (TB) treatment success, medication adherence, alcohol use and tobacco smoking., Design: Multicentre, individual, randomised controlled trial where participants were assigned (1:1) to the ProLife intervention or usual care., Setting: 27 primary care clinics in South Africa., Participants: 574 adults starting treatment for drug-sensitive pulmonary TB who smoked tobacco or reported harmful/hazardous alcohol use., Interventions: The intervention, delivered by lay health workers (LHWs), consisted of three brief motivational interviewing (MI) sessions, augmented with short message service (SMS) messages, targeting medication adherence, alcohol use and tobacco smoking., Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was successful versus unsuccessful TB treatment at 6-9 months, from TB records. Secondary outcomes were biochemically confirmed sustained smoking cessation, reduction in the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) score, improved TB and antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence and ART initiation, each measured at 3 and 6 months by questionnaires; and cure rates in patients who had bacteriology-confirmed TB at baseline, from TB records., Results: Between 15 November 2018 and 31 August 2019, 574 participants were randomised to receive either the intervention (n=283) or usual care (n=291). TB treatment success rates did not differ significantly between intervention (67.8%) and control (70.1%; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.64% to 1.27%). There was no evidence of an effect at 3 and 6 months, respectively, on continuous smoking abstinence (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.14; OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.63), TB medication adherence (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.52 to 2.87; OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.07), taking ART (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.65; OR 2.05, 95% CI 0.80 to 5.27) or AUDIT scores (mean score difference 0.55, 95% CI -1.01 to 2.11; -0.04, 95% CI -2.0 to 1.91) and adjusting for baseline values. Cure rates were not significantly higher (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.63)., Conclusions: Simultaneous targeting of multiple health risk behaviours with MI and SMS using LHWs may not be an effective approach to improve TB outcomes., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN62728852., Competing Interests: Competing interests: OAA-Y, the principal investigator, received a research grant (MRC-RFA-02: TB -05-2015) which was allocated to Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University to pay for the expenses related to the research project, and received support for attending meetings and for travel by Tax Justice Network Africa. He is the vice chair of the Standing Committee on Health, Academy of Science, SA (not remunerated). As coprincipal investigator, KS received part of the MRC-Newton research grant (MRC-RFA-02: TB -05-2015), which was allocated to the University of York to support the research by the authors affiliated to the University of York (KS, NDM, MK, SP and JL). GL received a small monthly remuneration per month from 1 October 2018 to 30 June 2020 as academic research coordinator. AVZ was employed as a research data manager on a part-time basis from 1 September 2017 to 30 June 2020., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)