SETTING: 545 communities from 17 high-income, upper-middle, low-middle and low-income countries (HIC, UMIC, LMIC, LIC) involved in the Environmental Profile of a Community's Health (EPOCH) study from 2009 to 2014.
PARTICIPANTS: Community audits and surveys of adults (35-70 years, n=12 953).
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Summary scores of tobacco policy implementation (cost and availability of cigarettes, tobacco advertising, antismoking signage), social unacceptability and knowledge were associated with quit ratios (former vs ever smokers) using multilevel logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Average tobacco control policy score was greater in communities from HIC. Overall 56.1% (306/545) of communities had >2 outlets selling cigarettes and in 28.6% (154/539) there was access to cheap cigarettes (<5cents/cigarette) (3.2% (3/93) in HIC, 0% UMIC, 52.6% (90/171) LMIC and 40.4% (61/151) in LIC). Effective bans (no tobacco advertisements) were in 63.0% (341/541) of communities (81.7% HIC, 52.8% UMIC, 65.1% LMIC and 57.6% LIC). In 70.4% (379/538) of communities, >80% of participants disapproved youth smoking (95.7% HIC, 57.6% UMIC, 76.3% LMIC and 58.9% LIC). The average knowledge score was >80% in 48.4% of communities (94.6% HIC, 53.6% UMIC, 31.8% LMIC and 35.1% LIC). Summary scores of policy implementation, social unacceptability and knowledge were positively and significantly associated with quit ratio and the associations varied by gender, for example, communities in the highest quintile of the combined scores had 5.0 times the quit ratio in men (Odds ratio (OR) 5·0, 95% CI 3.4 to 7.4) and 4.1 times the quit ratio in women (OR 4.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 7.1).
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that more focus is needed on ensuring the tobacco control policy is actually implemented, particularly in LMICs. The gender-related differences in associations of policy, social unacceptability and knowledge suggest that different strategies to promoting quitting may need to be implemented in men compared to women.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 206 Malaysian adolescents (age: 11-18 years) were screened in orthodontic clinics to identify those with normative need, oral impacts due to malocclusion, and having high and medium-to-high behavioural propensities. The Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need classified normative need. The Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetics (PIDA) questionnaire and the Condition-Specific Child-Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (CS-OIDP) index measured oral impacts. Subjects' behavioural propensities for successful treatment outcome were based on the Basic Periodontal Examination and International Caries Detection and Assessment System. Data were analysed using the McNemar test.
RESULTS: The response rate was 99.0%. Estimates of normative need (89.7%) were significantly reduced under the sociodental model by 65.7% (p Health policy makers should understand the implication of adopting one instrument or the other when estimating orthodontic treatment need.