New EU health commissioner promises early tobacco legislation

BMJ ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 345 (nov27 4) ◽  
pp. e8091-e8091
Author(s):  
R. Watson
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
T A Agishina ◽  
V A Kontsevaya ◽  
M G Gambaryan

Abstract Background Smoking increases the risk of developing many diseases, both non-infectious and infectious. On February 23, 2013, the Russian Federation adopted an anti-smoking law, which provided for a two-stage ban on smoking in public places. Since June 1, 2013, smoking has been banned in schools, hospitals, public transport, railway stations, workplaces, and since June 1, 2014 - in trains, hotels, bars, restaurants. Purpose To study the dynamics of monthly hospitalization rates for respiratory diseases and acute otitis media in three regions of the Russian Federation (Chuvash Republic, Samara and Arkhangelsk regions). Methods A retrospective analysis of the monthly hospital incidence of pneumonia of various etiologies (ICD-10 J12-J18), other acute lower respiratory infections (J20-J22), asthma (J45), status asthmaticus (J46) and acute otitis media (H65.0, H65.1, H66.0) from 2012 to 2017. The data were analyzed by the method of interrupted time series. The information was provided by the regional Fund of Medical Insurance. Results Two control points were identified - June 2013 and June 2014. We demonstrated the reduction of hospitalization rates for acute lower respiratory infections and pneumonia immediately after each of the two stages of the anti-smoking policy implementation in all regions studied. In the Arkhangelsk region, the decrease was 19% in 2013 and 22% in 2014, in the Samara region - 20% and 23%, and in the Chuvash Republic - 31% and 39%. The reduction of hospitalization for asthma, status asthmaticus and acute otitis media was observed only in Chuvash Republic: the decrease in the number of hospitalizations for asthma and status asthmaticus was 11% in 2013 and 12% in 2014, and for acute otitis media - 25% and 35%. In other regions the decline was non-significant. Conclusions Anti-tobacco legislation leads to an immediate and significant reduction in the number of hospitalizations for lower respiratory tract infections. Key messages The ban on smoking in public places reduces infections of the lower respiratory tract and acute otitis media. Anti-tobacco legislation has a positive impact on public health.


1988 ◽  
Vol 7 (suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 54-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Axelrod

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-21
Author(s):  
Kalaivani Annadurai ◽  
Geetha Mani ◽  
Raja Dhanasekaran

Background: Knowing the prevalence of tobacco use and the socio-demographic profile of users might prove useful in further strengthening the information, education, communication and regulatory activities, thereby decreasing tobacco use. The objective was to study the prevalence and pattern of tobacco use among men aged 18 years and above in rural area of Tamil Nadu. Methods: A cross sectional study was performed among 714 males aged 18 years and above in Vadagarai village of Tamil Nadu during 2010 and interviewed with a pretested questionnaire. Systematic random sampling was used to select the participants. Results: Prevalence of smoking was found to be 36.7%. Cigarette smoking was more common than beedi and smokeless tobacco. Conclusion: Strict enforcement of anti-tobacco legislation and awareness measures targeting ill-effects of tobacco can be intensified to reduce tobacco related morbidity and mortality.


Pained ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 51-52
Author(s):  
Michael D. Stein ◽  
Sandro Galea

This chapter discusses health gaps by giving an example of a campaign for flu vaccination. To improve the town’s flu vaccination rate, the mayor tasks the health commissioner to develop a strategy that communicates, primarily through doctors’ offices, the importance of flu vaccinations. The strategy works; the flu vaccination rate increased from 45% to 65%. This success is not as complete as it looks, however. At the level of what the mayor intended—that more residents would be vaccinated—the campaign worked. However, the health gaps in town between the rich and the poor residents also increased—substantially. Health inequities like these are the result of systematic injustice—in this case, the injustice of unequal access to health care settings where vaccine marketing and delivery take place, and the broader socioeconomic inequality this reflects. These inequities matter. After all, if a pocket of the town’s population remains unvaccinated, it puts the whole area at risk, even if vaccination rates go up among the rich. Public health must recognize that a healthy society is one where health is accessible to all—not some, or even most, but all.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document