As described throughout this chapter, tobacco use is the cause of many cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases, and is a consistently a leading preventable cause of death (see Sections 3.0 and 3.30). The implementation of comprehensive tobacco control programs has aimed to reduce the enormous harms of smoking to individuals and societies. In line with the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC, see Chapter 19), the WHO formulated six groups of tobacco control measures that aim to reduce demand for tobacco, represented by the MPOWER acronym:
- Monitoring tobacco use and prevention policies
- Protecting people from tobacco smoke
- Offering help to quit tobacco use
- Warning about the dangers of tobacco
- Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship
- Raising taxes on tobacco.
A robust body of evidence supports the substantial impact of these policies on reducing tobacco use and improving population health.1-5 This is achieved through their impact on reducing active smoking, reducing exposure to secondhand smoke, and reducing uptake of smoking among young people. One study found that between 2007 and 2020, 136 countries had adopted one or more MPOWER measures which was projected to reduce the number of people who smoke worldwide by about 81 million, translating to more than 28 million premature smoking-attributable deaths averted.6
Mortality averted by comprehensive tobacco control
A number of studies have sought to quantify the potential of comprehensive tobacco control implementation in averting premature deaths caused by tobacco use. An early study on anti-smoking campaigns in the US estimated that by encouraging millions of people to quit smoking or not take up smoking in the first place, more than 200,000 premature smoking-related deaths were avoided during 1964–1978, each of which translated into 23 additional years of life. These estimates exceeded those attributable to lowering speed limits and federal car safety standards.7 Another study estimated that as a result of the anti-smoking campaign, 789,200 Americans avoided or postponed smoking-related deaths between 1964 and 1985 and gained an average of 21 additional years of life expectancy each, representing more than 16 million person-years of additional life. It noted that the greatest health benefits would be realised in the future, when young people reach the ages at which smoking claims the most lives, and as middle-aged people who quit decades prior realise relative reductions in smoking mortality risks. The study estimated that decisions not to smoke due to anti-smoking campaigns made prior to 1986 would result in the delay or avoidance of an estimated 2.1 million smoking-related deaths between 1986 and 2000.8
A study published in 2014 estimated that tobacco control efforts since the first US Surgeon General’s report on smoking in 1964—which provided an authoritative review of the effects of tobacco use on health—have been associated with the avoidance of an estimated 8.0 million premature smoking-attributable deaths in the US. Moreover, with 157 million life years saved, the people who have avoided these early deaths have gained, on average, nearly two decades of life.9 Compared with the rest of the US, California’s comprehensive tobacco control program was associated with a significantly greater annual rate of decline in heart disease deaths and was estimated to have averted 33,300 deaths between 1989 and 1997.10
Policies and important events in tobacco control have been effective in reducing cancer deaths. The release of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeon General’s reports in 1962 and 1964, public education campaigns in 1967, and the ban on cigarette ads on TV and radio in 1976 were associated with significant reductions in smoking in Australia, which were associated with important reductions in cancer mortality about 20 years later.11 Australian researchers estimated that compared to a scenario with no tobacco control policies, tobacco control interventions have already averted 20% of the possible lung cancer deaths between 1956 and 2015.12 In the US, one study estimated that between 1975 and 2000, more than 550,000 lung cancer deaths among men and more than 240,000 lung cancer deaths among women were averted by tobacco control efforts.13 A study in Europe concluded that for every 10-point increase in tobacco control score (i.e., level of implementation of key policies), there was a significant decrease in mortality from leukemia.14
Morbidity averted by comprehensive tobacco control
In addition to preventing premature deaths, comprehensive tobacco control programs substantially reduce disease and disability. Following the implementation of policies that incorporated all six aspects of MPOWER in Beijing, an estimated 13.4% of hospital admissions for CVD15 and 14.7% of hospital admissions for COPD16 were averted. Research in Panama suggests a reduced risk of heart attacks following implementation of tobacco control measures.17 The implementation of a comprehensive tobacco control program in Russia (a complete ban on smoking in public places, workplaces and public transport; a ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship; restrictions on the retail sale of tobacco products; an annual increase in excise taxes on tobacco products; public education; and cessation support) resulted in a sustained reduction in pneumonia hospitalisation rates18 and may have reduced cardiovascular morbidity.19 A comprehensive tobacco control program implemented in Washington state was associated with reductions in heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, respiratory disease, and cancer.20 Several studies have noted that enforcement is an important factor in the extent of positive health outcomes following tobacco control policy implementation, with greater benefits seen in regions/countries with stronger enforcement.18,21,22
Comprehensive tobacco control programs reduce smoking among women of child-bearing age and have positive maternal and child health outcomes; for example, in the Netherlands, implementation of a smokefree law for the hospitality industry combined with a tobacco tax increase and mass media campaign was associated with a reduction in small-for-gestational-age births.22 Research in Europe showed that the level of implementation of tobacco control policies is inversely related to perinatal outcomes, particularly preterm births.23
The role of individual tobacco control policies in averting death and disease
Smokefree legislation
The implementation of smokefree legislation protects the community from exposure to secondhand smoke and is associated with reductions in the risk of adverse cardiovascular, respiratory, and perinatal outcomes.24 See Section 15.9 for a detailed discussion of the role of smokefree legislation in improving health.
Tobacco taxes and prices
Raising taxes on tobacco is the single most effective policy in reducing tobacco consumption (see Chapter 13), and it has been argued that raising tobacco taxes can do more to reduce premature death than any other single health policy.25 A major report published in 2019 estimated that tax increases that raise prices by 20 per cent could avert over 10 million premature deaths during the subsequent 50 years, gaining an estimated 212 million years of life. Taxes that raise prices by 50 per cent could avert over 27 million premature deaths and provide more than 535 million years of additional life. The number of deaths averted by a 50 per cent increase in prices via tax would be on a par with eliminating all global cancer deaths for 3 years (about 8 million per year).25 A major study examining MPOWER measures found that between 2007 and 2014, 20 nations raised cigarette taxes to 75% of price, which they projected would avert 7 million smoking-attributable deaths.4 Research in the US found that a $1 increase in total tobacco tax decreased the mortality rate for throat and lung cancer by 15.7%, for respiratory diseases by 22.0%, for respiratory and digestive cancer by 15.0%, and the overall mortality rate by 8.0%. It estimated that 53,300 lives were saved in 2010 due to the tobacco tax changes implemented over the period 1970–2005.26 Higher tobacco taxes and prices have also been associated with reduced hospitalisations for heart failure,27 heart attacks,28,29 and asthma,29 reduced asthma severity,30 reduced bladder cancer incidence,31 and reduced sudden cardiac deaths.29
Raising taxes on tobacco is also associated with positive health outcomes for pregnant women and infants.32 A global analysis of 159 countries concluded that higher cigarette taxes were associated with significant declines in both neonatal and infant mortality, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.33 Research in the US similarly found that increases in cigarette taxes and prices are associated with decreases in infant mortality rates, with greater benefits found for African American infants.34 In the EU, cigarette price increases across 23 countries between 2004 and 2014 were associated with 9,208 fewer infant deaths, while increased cigarette price differentials (i.e., a greater price gap between premium and budget cigarettes which can undermine the effectiveness of tax increases) were associated with higher infant mortality.35 Research in the US estimated that each 10 per cent increase in the real price of cigarettes reduces the average number of SIDS deaths by 6.9–7.6 per cent,36 and a study examining developed countries over a 20-year period calculated that for each dollar increase in cigarette prices, an average of 12 to 13 infant deaths (from SIDS) can be avoided each year.37 Another US study estimated that a one cent increase in the state tax rate on cigarettes increases average birth weight by 0.16g.38
Of all tobacco control policies, increases in tobacco taxes have the greatest potential to reduce socioeconomic disparities in smoking (see Section 13.11), and to lead to the greatest health gains among under-resourced groups.25 Several studies in the US have found that responses to tax increases and improved birth outcomes have been greatest among mothers with low education levels.39-41 For example, one showed that among White and Black mothers with a low level of education, every $1 increase in the cigarette tax increased the birth weight of their infants by 4.2g and 0.9g, respectively.40 Another showed a 0.002 per cent reduction in birth defects in response to a $1 cigarette tax increase, translating to approximately 3 fewer babies born with a birth defect to low-educated White mothers each year.41 Research in Vietnam estimated that men in the poorest quintile would gain about 2.8 times the life-years and avert 2.5 times the treatment cost compared with the wealthiest quintile in response to a tobacco price increase, which would avert tens of thousands of men falling into extreme poverty.42 In Ethiopia, it was estimated that people in the bottom two socioeconomic quintiles would experience about 60% of the gains in life years following a tax increase.43
Other tobacco control policies
There is relatively limited research on the effects of other tobacco control policies on health outcomes. One major study projected that the adoption of large graphic health warnings in 33 countries between 2007 and 2014 would avert 4.1 million smoking-attributable deaths, comprehensive marketing bans in 22 nations would avert 3.8 million deaths, and comprehensive cessation interventions in 14 nations would avert 1.5 million deaths.4 Australian research found that a cigarette advertisement ban was associated with reduced overall cancer mortality by −1.24 per 100,000 population.11 A study in the US found that a minimum tobacco purchase age of 21 lowered the incidence of low birth weight infants by 19 per cent,44 while another found that Medicaid coverage for NRT, medications and cessation counselling during pregnancy was associated with a small increase in infant gestation.45 Also in the US, counties with higher tobacco retailer availability were shown to have greater chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related discharges, hospital stays, and financial costs, suggesting that policies that reduce tobacco retailer availability could reduce COPD-related burdens.46
Estimating future lives saved by tobacco control
As described above, the implementation of comprehensive tobacco control programs over the past half century has undoubtedly averted suffering among millions of people who have avoided smoking-related disease. Nonetheless, smoking continues to be a leading cause of illness and death, and the continuing and strengthening of such programs is needed to further reduce its enormous toll. Australian researchers estimated that tobacco control interventions should avert about two-thirds of lung cancer deaths that would have been expected by the end of the century in an alternate scenario of no tobacco control inititaives.12 A study examining 30 countries in Europe estimated that of all lung cancer cases expected between 2018 and 2037, approximately 19.8% (~935,000 cases) among men and 23.2% (~718,000 cases) among women could be prevented by achieving the highest-level implementation of tobacco control policies by 2018.47 A modelling study in Thailand estimated that a comprehensive tobacco control program would avert an estimated 99,800 deaths over 10 years.48 Researchers in Mexico estimated that implementing MPOWER measures in Mexico could reduce smoking prevalence by 50%, and prevent 470,000 smoking-related deaths by 2053.49 The combined effect of all tobacco control policies in eleven Newly Independent States in Europe was estimated to be 10.1–15.6 million smoking-attributable deaths averted within 40 years.21 In the US, modelling suggests that comprehensive tobacco control policies would lead to 23% to 28% decreases across all adverse perinatal outcomes from 2015 to 2065. This includes reductions in low birthweight births, preterm births, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), placenta previa cases, placental abruption cases, and ectopic pregnancies.50 A study in Ethiopia estimated that a tax increase in 2020 that increased the price of an average pack by 67% would avert almost 8 million deaths over the lifespan of current (and future) people who smoke who are encouraged to quit.43
One study notes that while some future morbidity and mortality is unavoidable—as even if all smoking ceased immediately, some of those who formerly smoked remain at elevated risk of health harms—the enormity of the future burden of smoking means that averting any portion of premature mortality would be a major victory for public health.51 Adoption of the MPOWER measures is incomplete and inconsistent across countries, therefore there is enormous potential to reduce smoking-attributable disease and deaths by implementing evidence-based tobacco control measures that are known to reduce population smoking prevalence.4
Related reading
Test your knowledge
References
1. Hoffman SJ and Tan C. Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15:744. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26242915
2. Gravely S, Giovino GA, Craig L, Commar A, D'Espaignet ET, et al. Implementation of key demand-reduction measures of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and change in smoking prevalence in 126 countries: an association study. Lancet Public Health, 2017; 2(4):e166-e74. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29253448
3. Levy DT, Ellis JA, Mays D, and Huang AT. Smoking-related deaths averted due to three years of policy progress. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2013; 91(7):509-18.
4. Levy DT, Yuan Z, Luo Y, and Mays D. Seven years of progress in tobacco control: an evaluation of the effect of nations meeting the highest level MPOWER measures between 2007 and 2014. Tob Control, 2018; 27(1):50-7.
5. Levy DT, Li Y, and Yuan Z. Impact of nations meeting the MPOWER targets between 2014 and 2016: an update. Tobacco Control, 2020; 29(2):231-3. Available from: https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/29/2/231.full.pdf
6. Lyle G and Hendrie D. Global smoking-related deaths averted due to MPOWER policies implemented at the highest level between 2007 and 2020. Globalization and Health, 2024; 20(1):40. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-023-01012-w
7. Warner KE and Murt HA. Premature deaths avoided by the antismoking campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 1983; 73(6):672-7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6846675
8. Warner KE. Effects of the antismoking campaign: an update. American Journal of Public Health, 1989; 79(2):144-51. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2913831
9. Holford TR, Meza R, Warner KE, Meernik C, Jeon J, et al. Tobacco control and the reduction in smoking-related premature deaths in the United States, 1964-2012. JAMA, 2014; 311(2):164-71. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24399555
10. Fichtenberg CM and Glantz SA. Association of the California Tobacco Control Program with declines in cigarette consumption and mortality from heart disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 2000; 343(24):1772-7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11114317
11. Jiang H, Livingston M, Room R, Gan Y, English D, et al. Can public health policies on alcohol and tobacco reduce a cancer epidemic? Australia's experience. BMC Medicine, 2019; 17(1):213. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31771596
12. Luo Q, Steinberg J, O'Connell DL, Yu XQ, Caruana M, et al. Lung cancer mortality in Australia in the twenty-first century: How many lives can be saved with effective tobacco control? Lung Cancer, 2019; 130:208-15. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30885346
13. Moolgavkar SH, Holford TR, Levy DT, Kong CY, Foy M, et al. Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975-2000. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012; 104(7):541-8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22423009
14. Mehta D, Dennis R, Nallamilli S, Vithayathil M, and Martinez-Sanchez JM. Correlation between tobacco control policies and mortality of haematological cancers across Europe: An ecological study. Tob Prev Cessat, 2021; 7:31. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33948522
15. Wu Y, Wang Z, Zheng Y, Wang M, Wang S, et al. The impact of comprehensive tobacco control policies on cardiovascular diseases in Beijing, China. Addiction, 2021; 116(8):2175-84. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33404152
16. Wu Y, Wang Z, Zheng Y, Wang M, Wang S, et al. Trends in Hospital Admissions for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases After Comprehensive Tobacco Control Policies in Beijing, China. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2022; 24(12):1978-84. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35808957
17. Jan C, Lee M, Roa R, Herrera V, Politis M, et al. The association of tobacco control policies and the risk of acute myocardial infarction using hospital admissions data. PLoS ONE, 2014; 9(2):e88784. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24520421
18. Gambaryan M, Kontsevaya A, and Drapkina O. Impact of National Tobacco Control Policy on Rates of Hospital Admission for Pneumonia: When Compliance Matters. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2023; 20(10). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37239619
19. Gambaryan M, Reeves A, Deev A, Popovich M, Drapkina O, et al. Effects of tobacco control policy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in Russia. European Journal of Public Health, 2018; 28(suppl_2):14-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30371836
20. Dilley JA, Harris JR, Boysun MJ, and Reid TR. Program, policy, and price interventions for tobacco control: quantifying the return on investment of a state tobacco control program. American Journal of Public Health, 2012; 102(2):e22-8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22390458
21. Levy DT, Levy J, and Mauer-Stender K. Potential impact of strong tobacco-control policies in 11 newly independent states. Central European Journal of Public Health, 2019; 27(2):115-26. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31241286
22. Peelen MJ, Sheikh A, Kok M, Hajenius P, Zimmermann LJ, et al. Tobacco control policies and perinatal health: a national quasi-experimental study. Sci Rep, 2016; 6:23907. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27103591
23. Diez-Izquierdo A, Balaguer A, Lidon-Moyano C, Martin-Sanchez JC, Galan I, et al. Correlation between tobacco control policies and preterm births and low birth weight in Europe. Environmental Research, 2018; 160:547-53. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29089104
24. Akter S, Islam MR, Rahman MM, Rouyard T, Nsashiyi RS, et al. Evaluation of Population-Level Tobacco Control Interventions and Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Netw Open, 2023; 6(7):e2322341. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37418258
25. Task Force on Fiscal Policy for Health. Health Taxes to Save Lives: Employing Effective Excise Taxes on Tobacco, Alcohol, and Sugary Beverages. Bloomberg Philanthropies, 2019. Available from: https://www.bbhub.io/dotorg/sites/2/2019/04/Health-Taxes-to-Save-Lives.pdf
26. Bowser D, Canning D, and Okunogbe A. The impact of tobacco taxes on mortality in the USA, 1970-2005. Tob Control, 2016; 25(1):52-9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25352561
27. Ho V, Ross JS, Steiner CA, Mandawat A, Short M, et al. A Nationwide Assessment of the Association of Smoking Bans and Cigarette Taxes With Hospitalizations for Acute Myocardial Infarction, Heart Failure, and Pneumonia. Medical Care Research and Review, 2017; 74(6):687-704. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27624634
28. Patanavanich R and Glantz SA. Association between tobacco control policies and hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction in Thailand, 2006-2017: A time series analysis. PLoS ONE, 2020; 15(12):e0242570. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33264315
29. Ma ZQ, Kuller LH, Fisher MA, and Ostroff SM. Use of interrupted time-series method to evaluate the impact of cigarette excise tax increases in Pennsylvania, 2000-2009. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2013; 10:E169. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24135393
30. Hatoun J, Davis-Plourde K, Penti B, Cabral H, and Kazis L. Tobacco Control Laws and Pediatric Asthma. Pediatrics, 2018; 141(Suppl 1):S130-S6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29292313
31. Wong R, Matulewicz RS, Talwar R, Shoenbill KA, Goldstein AO, et al. Increased Tobacco Taxation Associated With Decreased Consumption and Bladder Cancer Incidence. Urol Pract, 2025; 12(2):250-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39454020
32. Faber T, Kumar A, Mackenbach JP, Millett C, Basu S, et al. Effect of tobacco control policies on perinatal and child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health, 2017; 2(9):e420-e37. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28944313
33. Rado MK, Laverty AA, Hone T, Chang K, Jawad M, et al. Cigarette taxation and neonatal and infant mortality: A longitudinal analysis of 159 countries. PLOS Glob Public Health, 2022; 2(3):e0000042. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36962262
34. Patrick SW, Warner KE, Pordes E, and Davis MM. Cigarette Tax Increase and Infant Mortality. Pediatrics, 2016; 137(1). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26628730
35. Filippidis FT, Laverty AA, Hone T, Been JV, and Millett C. Association of Cigarette Price Differentials With Infant Mortality in 23 European Union Countries. JAMA Pediatr, 2017; 171(11):1100-6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28975220
36. Markowitz S. The effectiveness of cigarette regulations in reducing cases of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Journal of Health Economics, 2008; 27(1):106-33. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17498829
37. King C, Markowitz S, and Ross H. Tobacco Control Policies and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Developed Nations. Health Economics, 2015; 24(8):1042-8. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25044665
38. Evans WN and Ringel JS. Can higher cigarette taxes improve birth outcomes? Journal of Public Economics, 1999; 72(1):135-54. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272798000905
39. Hawkins SS, Baum CF, Oken E, and Gillman MW. Associations of tobacco control policies with birth outcomes. JAMA Pediatr, 2014; 168(11):e142365. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25365250
40. Hawkins SS and Baum CF. The downstream effects of state tobacco control policies on maternal smoking during pregnancy and birth outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 2019; 205:107634. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31669802
41. Hawkins SS and Baum CF. Impact of state tobacco control policies on birth defects. Preventive Medicine, 2019; 127:105791. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31398414
42. Wu DC, Jha P, Dutta S, and Marquez P. Impact of cigarette price increase on health and financing outcomes in Vietnam. Gates Open Res, 2019; 3:1516. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32478310
43. Chakrabarti A, Memirie ST, Yigletu S, Mirutse MK, and Verguet S. The potential distributional health and financial benefits of increased tobacco taxes in Ethiopia: Findings from a modeling study. SSM Popul Health, 2022; 18:101097. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35620486
44. Yan J. The Effects of a Minimum Cigarette Purchase Age of 21 on Prenatal Smoking and Infant Health. Eastern Economic Journal, 2014; 40(3):289-308. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1057/eej.2013.42
45. Adams EK, Markowitz S, Dietz PM, and Tong VT. Expansion of Medicaid covered smoking cessation services: maternal smoking and birth outcomes. Medicare Medicaid Res Rev, 2013; 3(3). Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24753968
46. Kong AY, Baggett CD, Gottfredson NC, Ribisl KM, Delamater PL, et al. Associations of tobacco retailer availability with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related hospital outcomes, United States, 2014. Health and Place, 2021; 67:102464. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33276261
47. Gredner T, Mons U, Niedermaier T, Brenner H, and Soerjomataram I. Impact of tobacco control policies implementation on future lung cancer incidence in Europe: An international, population-based modeling study. Lancet Reg Health Eur, 2021; 4:100074. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34029359
48. Aungkulanon S, Pitayarangsarit S, Bundhamcharoen K, Akaleephan C, Chongsuvivatwong V, et al. Smoking prevalence and attributable deaths in Thailand: predicting outcomes of different tobacco control interventions. BMC Public Health, 2019; 19(1):984. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31337385
49. Fleischer NL, Thrasher JF, Reynales-Shigematsu LM, Cummings KM, Meza R, et al. Mexico SimSmoke: how changes in tobacco control policies would impact smoking prevalence and smoking attributable deaths in Mexico. Global Public Health, 2017; 12(7):830-45. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26837721
50. Levy D, Mohlman MK, and Zhang Y. Estimating the Potential Impact of Tobacco Control Policies on Adverse Maternal and Child Health Outcomes in the United States Using the SimSmoke Tobacco Control Policy Simulation Model. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 2016; 18(5):1240-9. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26385929
51. Warner KE and Mendez D. How much of the future mortality toll of smoking can be avoided? Tob Control, 2020. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32546663