Enhancing implementation of smoke-free places: A comparative qualitative study across seven European cities.

Clicks: 343
ID: 90758
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #48 of 124 articles by views in Social science & medicine (1982)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 124 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Advocacy, resources and intersubjective reasonable arguments are known as factors that contribute to smoke-free (SF) adoption and implementation in Chinese and Anglo-Saxon places. Less is known about how the implementation of smoking bans differs across European places. The aim of this qualitative comparative study is to identify and classify the SF policy implementation processes and types undertaken at the local level in seven European cities according to the views of local bureaucrats and sub-national stakeholders.Semi-structured expert interviews (n = 56) with local decision makers and stakeholders were conducted as qualitative part of the comparative SILNE-R project in Belgium (Namur), Finland (Tampere), Germany (Hanover), the Republic of Ireland (Dublin), the Netherlands (Amersfoort), Italy (Latina), and Portugal (Coimbra). Qualitative interviews were analyzed using the framework analysis.Implementation of SF environments predominantly focuses on indoor bans or youth-related settings. Progressive-hungry (Dublin), moderate-rational (Tampere), upper-saturated (Hanover, Amersfoort), and lower saturated (Namur, Coimbra, Latina) implementation types can be distinguished. These four types differ with regards to their engagement in enhancing SF places as well as along their level of perceived tobacco de-normalization and public smoking visibility. In all municipalities SF environments are adopted at national levels, but are differently implemented at the local level due national policy environments, enforcement strategies and the level of collaboration. Major mechanisms to expand SF regulations were found to be scientific evidence, public support, and the child protection frame. However, counter-mechanisms of closure occur if data on declining prevalence and new youth addiction trends trigger low prioritization.This study found four SF implementation types two mechanisms of progressive expansion and defensive closure. Development and enhancement of smoking bans requires a suitable national policy environment and indirect national-level support of self-governed local initiatives. Future SF policies can be enhanced by laws pertaining to places frequented by minors.
Reference Key
mlinari2020enhancingsocial Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Mlinarić, Martin;Hoffmann, Laura;Lindfors, Pirjo;Richter, Matthias;, ;
Journal Social science & medicine (1982)
Year 2020
DOI
S0277-9536(20)30024-1
URL
Keywords
health policy implementation tobacco control cities framework analysis local level smoke-free smoking bans

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.