Advertisement

From priority to endgame: the Region of Peel Living Tobacco-Free strategy

  • Kieran J. D. Steer
  • Kathie Brown
  • Heather Doncaster
  • Karalyn Dueck
  • Lawrence C. LohEmail author
Commentary
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Tobacco use presents a tremendous burden on population health and remains the leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Building on tobacco control successes to date, public health agencies are increasingly aligning with the international “Tobacco Endgame” initiative targeting decreases in tobacco use to less than 5% by the year 2025. The local implementation of this initiative follows a decade of work at Region of Peel-Public Health (RoP-PH), a local health department in Ontario, Canada, which made “Living Tobacco-Free” (LTF) a strategic priority in 2009 with a tactical framework encompassing Research, Protection, Prevention, and Cessation. This commentary provides an overview of the results observed by this local health department’s decision to make LTF a strategic priority and discusses the department’s next steps in developing a Theory of Change to systematically align continuing efforts to the call for a “Tobacco Endgame”.

Keywords

Tobacco Smoking Public health Canada Ontario 

Résumé

Le tabagisme constitue un fardeau énorme pour la santé des populations et demeure la principale cause évitable de morbidité et de mortalité dans le monde. En se fondant sur les succès remportés jusqu’à maintenant dans la lutte antitabac, les organismes de santé publique s’alignent de plus en plus sur l’initiative internationale de Tobacco Endgame (« sortie du tabac ») qui vise à réduire le taux de tabagisme à moins de 5 % d’ici 2025. Au Bureau de santé de la région de Peel, en Ontario (Canada), on y travaille depuis 10 ans : Living Tobacco Free (« vivre sans tabac ») est en effet une priorité stratégique du bureau depuis 2009, dotée d’un cadre tactique qui englobe la recherche, la protection, la prévention et l’arrêt du tabac. Dans ce commentaire, nous présentons un sommaire des résultats observés à la suite de la décision de ce bureau de santé local de faire de « vivre sans tabac » une priorité stratégique et nous expliquons que le bureau élabore maintenant une théorie du changement pour harmoniser systématiquement ses efforts en réponse à l’appel à « sortir du tabac ».

Mots-clés

Tabac Fumer Santé publique Canada Ontario 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the contributions of Stephanie Gee.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beeston, C., McAdams, R., Craig, N., Gordon, R., Graham, L., MacPherson, M., McAuley, A., McCartney, G., Robinson, M., Shipton, D., & Van Heelsum, A. (2016). Monitoring and evaluating Scotland’s alcohol strategy. Final report. Edinburgh: NHS Health Scotland.Google Scholar
  2. Breuer, E., Lee, L., De Silva, M., & Lund, C. (2016). Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review. Implementation Science, 11(1), 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Corsi, D. J., Boyle, M. H., Lear, S. A., Chow, C. K., Teo, K. K., & Subramanian, S. V. (2014). Trends in smoking in Canada from 1950 to 2011: progression of the tobacco epidemic according to socioeconomic status and geography. Cancer Causes & Control, 25(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dobrescu, A., Bhandari, A., Sutherland, G., & Dinh, T. (2017). The costs of tobacco use in Canada, 2012. Ottawa: The Conference Board of Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Government of Canada. (2018). Canada’s tobacco strategy. Resource Document. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/canada-tobacco-strategy.html. Accessed 28 Aug 2018.
  6. Hanewinkel, R., & Isensee, B. (2007). Five in a row--reactions of smokers to tobacco tax increases: population-based cross-sectional studies in Germany 2001-2006. Tobacco Control, 16(1), 34–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ipsos Public Affairs. (2018). Smoke free movies omnibus final report. Retrieved from: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2018-05/smoke_free_movies_2018_omnibus_final_report_may_11_2018.pdf. Accessed: 01-25-2019.
  8. Kernoghan, A., Lambraki, I., Pieters, K., & Garcia, J. M. (2014). Smoke-free housing: a review of the evidence. Toronto: Program Training and Consultation Centre and the Propel Centre for Population Health Impact. University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
  9. McDaniel, P. A., Smith, E. A., & Malone, R. E. (2016). The tobacco endgame: a qualitative review and synthesis. Tobacco Control, 25(5), 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. (2018). Smoke-free Ontario: the next chapter - 2018. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.Google Scholar
  11. Parks, M. J., Kingsbury, J. H., Boyle, R. G., & Choi, K. (2017). Behavioral change in response to a statewide tobacco tax increase and differences across socioeconomic status. Addictive Behaviors, 73, 209–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Statistics Canada. (2008). Appendix Table A. Smoking ban legislation in Canadian provinces and municipal bylaws in selected cities. Government of Canada. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-003-x/2006008/article/smoking-tabac/t/4060721-eng.htm#fn1. Accessed 28 Aug 2018.
  13. Statistics Canada. (2017). Smoking prevalence among Inuit in Canada, February 2017. Health Reports, 28(2), Catalogue no.82-003-X.Google Scholar
  14. Statistics Canada. (2018). Health fact sheets, June 2018. Canadian Community Health Survey. Catalogue no.82-625-X.Google Scholar
  15. Statistics Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. (2000/01, 2003, 2005). Canadian community health survey.Google Scholar
  16. Statistics Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. (2005, 2007/8, 2009/10). Canadian community health survey.Google Scholar
  17. Statistics Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. (2009/10). Canadian community health survey.Google Scholar
  18. Statistics Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. (2013/14). Canadian community health survey.Google Scholar
  19. van der Deen, F. S., Wilson, N., Cleghorn, C. L., Kvizhinadze, G., Cobiac, L. J., Nghiem, N., et al. (2018). Impact of five tobacco endgame strategies on future smoking prevalence, population health and health system costs: two modelling studies to inform the tobacco endgame. Tobacco Control, 27(3), 278–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weiss, C.H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: concepts, methods, and contexts. 1:65–92.Google Scholar
  21. Weitzman, B. C., Mijanovich, T., Silver, D., & Brecher, C. (2009). Finding the impact in a messy intervention: using an integrated design to evaluate a comprehensive citywide health initiative. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(4), 495–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kieran J. D. Steer
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kathie Brown
    • 1
  • Heather Doncaster
    • 1
  • Karalyn Dueck
    • 1
  • Lawrence C. Loh
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Region of Peel-Public HealthMississaugaCanada
  2. 2.University of Alberta, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryEdmontonCanada
  3. 3.Dalla Lana School of Public HealthUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations