3.8 Article

A decade after introducing MPOWER, trend analysis of implementation of the WHO FCTC in the Eastern Mediterranean Region

Journal

LUNG INDIA
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 120-125

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_388_19

Keywords

Control; Eastern Mediterranean Region; FCTC; framework; tobacco

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Perfect implementation of the six priority policies advocated by the MPOWER package is the most important challenge for member states (MS) to reach tobacco control goals. Methods: A validated checklist set according to the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic was filled out five times based on biannual reports from 2011 to 2019 for 22 MS in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. It contained ten topics including smoking prevalence and seven elements of six MPOWER policies and compliances resulting with possible maximum score of 37. High score indicates better implementation. Results: The total score for the region increased from 416 in 2011 to 509 in 2019. Six countries (27% of the region) had more than 75% of total score, whereas 11 countries were between 50% and 75% and five countries had <50% of total score in 2019. In all five reports, Iran was ranked first in the region even in 2019, when it witnessed a 2 point decrease. Iran held the first place alongside with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with 32 points. The highest score in the indicators was related to the monitoring, reaching from 35 in 2011 to 59 in 2019. The lowest score increase in the indicators was related to the Smoke-free Policy compliance and the prevalence of consumption, reaching from 18 to 20 and 44-48, respectively, between 2011 and 2019. Conclusions: Although several remarkable achievements have been made regarding tobacco control goals, many policy implementation challenges remain and require urgent action by member states in the Eastern Mediterranean region.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available