Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 347

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 91 of the 91 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review

Open access
Thomas, S, Fayter, D, Misso, K, Ogilvie, D, Petticrew, M, Sowden, A, Whitehead, M, Worthy, G·2008·Tobacco Control

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effects of population tobacco control interventions on social inequalities in smoking. Data sources: Medical, nursing, psychological, social science and grey literature databases, bibliographies, hand-searches and contact with authors. Study selection: Studies were included (n = 84) if they reported the effects of any population-level tobacco control intervention on smoking behaviour or attitudes in individuals or groups with different demographic or socioeconomic characteristics. Data extraction: Data extraction and quality assessment for each study were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data synthesis: Data were synthesised using graphical (“harvest plot”) and narrative methods. No strong evidence of differential effects was found for smoking restrictions in workplaces and public places, although those in higher occupational groups may be more likely to change their attitudes or behaviour. Smoking restrictions in schools may be more effective in girls. Restrictions on sales to minors may be more effective in girls and younger children. Increasing the price of tobacco products may be more effective in reducing smoking among lower-income adults and those in manual occupations, although there was also some evidence to suggest that adults with higher levels of education may be more price-sensitive. Young people aged under 25 are also affected by price increases, with some evidence that boys and non-white young people may be more sensitive to price. Conclusions: Population-level tobacco control interventions have the potential to benefit more disadvantaged groups and thereby contribute to reducing health inequalities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/tc.2007.023911

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 91 references

Cited by

See all 347

Metadata

Authors
Thomas, S., Fayter, D., Misso, K., Ogilvie, D., Petticrew, M., Sowden, A., Whitehead, M., & Worthy, G.
Venue
Tobacco Control
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-04-21
Volume
17
Issue
4
Pages
230-237
ISSN
  • 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3318
OpenAlex
W2105667575
Cited by
347
References
91
FWCI
1.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/tc.2007.023911
The paper
Thomas, S., Fayter, D., Misso, K., Ogilvie, D., Petticrew, M., Sowden, A., Whitehead, M., & Worthy, G. (2008). Population tobacco control interventions and their effects on social inequalities in smoking: systematic review. Tobacco Control. https://doi.org/10.1136/tc.2007.023911

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.