Cited by 41Global Public Health Policies and EpidemiologySmoking Behavior and CessationPolicy Transfer and Learning

From global agenda-setting to domestic implementation: successes and challenges of the global health network on tobacco control

Open access
Gneiting, Uwe·2016·Health Policy and Planning

Abstract

Global policy attention to tobacco control has increased significantly since the 1990 s and culminated in the first international treaty negotiated under the auspices of the World Health Organization--the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Although the political process that led to the creation of the FCTC has been extensively researched, the FCTC's progression from an aspirational treaty towards a global health governance framework with tangible policy effects within FCTC member countries has not been well-understood to date. This article analyses the role of the global health network of tobacco control advocates and scientists, which formed during the FCTC negotiations during the late 1990 s, in translating countries' commitment to the FCTC into domestic policy change. By comparing the network's influence around two central tobacco control interventions (smoke-free environments and taxation), the study identifies several scope conditions, which have shaped the network's effectiveness around the FCTC's implementation: the complexity of the policy issue and the relative importance of non-health expertise, the required scope of domestic political buy-in, the role of the general public as network allies, and the strength of policy opposition. These political factors had a greater influence on the network's success than the evidence base for the effectiveness of tobacco control interventions. The network's variable success points to a trade-off faced by global healt…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/heapol/czv001

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Gneiting, U.
Affiliations
Oxfam America (US)
Corresponding author
Gneiting, Uwe
Venue
Health Policy and Planning
Published
2015-08-06
Volume
31
Issue
suppl 1
Pages
i74-i86
ISSN
  • 0268-1080 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2237
OpenAlex
W2166726489
Cited by
41
References
3
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
11.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Policy and Planning (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
Keywords
tobacco control, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, global health networks, policy implementation, smoke-free areas, tobacco taxation, global health governance, agenda setting, policy opposition
MeSH terms
Smoking Prevention, Health Policy, Humans, Policy Making, Public Health, Taxes, Global Health, Internationality, Smoke-Free Policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review