Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BMC Public Health

Theresa M Marteau²  Martin Roland²  Marc Suhrcke²  Tom Ling¹  Stephanie Diepeveen¹ 

[1]RAND Europe, Cambridge, UK

[2]Behaviour and Health Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

关键词: Policy;    Public opinion;    Attitude;    Health behaviour;   

Others  :  1161926
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-756

 received in 2013-03-13, accepted in 2013-07-03,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Governments can intervene to change health-related behaviours using various measures but are sensitive to public attitudes towards such interventions. This review describes public attitudes towards a range of policy interventions aimed at changing tobacco and alcohol use, diet, and physical activity, and the extent to which these attitudes vary with characteristics of (a) the targeted behaviour (b) the intervention and (c) the respondents.

Methods

We searched electronic databases and conducted a narrative synthesis of empirical studies that reported public attitudes in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand towards interventions relating to tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity. Two hundred studies met the inclusion criteria.

Results

Over half the studies (105/200, 53%) were conducted in North America, with the most common interventions relating to tobacco control (110/200, 55%), followed by alcohol (42/200, 21%), diet-related interventions (18/200, 9%), interventions targeting both diet and physical activity (18/200, 9%), and physical activity alone (3/200, 2%). Most studies used survey-based methods (160/200, 80%), and only ten used experimental designs.

Acceptability varied as a function of: (a) the targeted behaviour, with more support observed for smoking-related interventions; (b) the type of intervention, with less intrusive interventions, those already implemented, and those targeting children and young people attracting most support; and (c) the characteristics of respondents, with support being highest in those not engaging in the targeted behaviour, and with women and older respondents being more likely to endorse more restrictive measures.

Conclusions

Public acceptability of government interventions to change behaviour is greatest for the least intrusive interventions, which are often the least effective, and for interventions targeting the behaviour of others, rather than the respondent him or herself. Experimental studies are needed to assess how the presentation of the problem and the benefits of intervention might increase acceptability for those interventions which are more effective but currently less acceptable.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Diepeveen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Policy process and practice. In Public Health: ethical issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2007. [http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Public%20health%20-%20ethical%20issues.pdf webcite]
• [2]Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC: Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 2012, 337:1492-1495.
• [3]Taskforce on Community Preventive Services: The guide to community preventive services: what works to promote health. US Government; 2012. [http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html webcite]
• [4]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: NICE Guidelines. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2012. [http://www.nice.org.uk/ webcite]
• [5]Branson C, Duffy B, Perry C, Wellings D: Acceptable behaviour: Public opinion on behaviour change policy. London: Ipsos MORI; 2012. [http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/publications/1454/Acceptable-Behaviour.aspx webcite]
• [6]Maryon-Davis A, Jolley R: Healthy Nudges: When the Public Wants Change But the Politicians Don’t Know It. London: Faculty of Public Health; [http://www.fph.org.uk/uploads/Healthy%20nudges%20-%20FN4.pdf webcite]
• [7]Blom-Hoffman J, Wilcox K, Dunn L, Leff S, Power TJ: Family involvement in school-based health promotion: bringing nutrition information home. School Psych Rev 2008, 37:567-577.
• [8]Braun BL, Wolfson M, Jones-Webb R, Wagenaar AC: Civic participation by 18- to 20-year-olds as a predictor of support for alcohol control policies. Contemp Drug Prob 1997, 24:39-56.
• [9]Codrington C, Sarri K, Kafatos A: Stakeholder appraisal of policy options for tackling obesity in Greece. Obes Rev 2007, 8:63-73.
• [10]González-Zapata LI, Alvarez-Dardet C, Millstone E, Clemente-Gómez V, Holdsworth M, Ortiz-Moncada R, Lobstein T, Sarri K, De Marchi B, Horvath KZ: The potential role of taxes and subsidies on food in the prevention of obesity in Europe. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010, 64:696-704.
• [11]Holdsworth MF, Delpeuch F, Kameli Y, Lobstein T, Millstone E: The acceptability to stakeholders of mandatory nutritional labelling in France and the UK–findings from the PorGrow project. J Hum Nutr Diet 2010, 1:11-19.
• [12]Holdsworth M, Kameli Y, Delpeuch F: Stakeholder views on policy options for responding to the growing challenge from obesity in France: findings from the PorGrow project. Obes Rev 2007, 8:53-61.
• [13]Millstone E, Lobstein T: The PorGrow Project: overall crossnational results, comparisons and implications. Obes Rev 2007, 8(Supplement 2):29-36.
• [14]Peters E, Romer D, Slovic P, Jamieson KH, Wharfield L, Mertz CK, Carpenter SM: The impact and acceptability of Canadian-style cigarette warning labels among U.S. smokers and non-smokers. Nicotine & Tobacco 2007, 9:473-481.
• [15]Pilling VK, Brannon LA: Assessing college students’ attitudes toward responsible drinking messages to identify promising binge drinking intervention strategies. Health Commun 2007, 22:265-276.
• [16]Ross NA, Taylor SM: Geographical variation in attitudes towards smoking: findings from the COMMIT communities. Soc Sci Med 1998, 46:703-717.
• [17]Van Sluijs EMF, Van Poppel MNM: Feasibility and acceptability of a physical activity promotion programme in general practice. Fam Pract 2004, 21:429-436.
• [18]Giesbrecht N, Kavanagh L: Public opinion and alcohol policy: comparisons of two Canadian general population surveys. Drug Alcohol Rev 1999, 18:7-19.
• [19]Greenfield T, Yu Y, Giesbrecht N: Alcohol policy opinions in the United States over a 15-year period of dynamic per capita consumption changes: Implications for today’s public health practice. Contemp Drug Prob 2007, 34:649-680.
• [20]Wilkinson C, Room R, Livingston M: Mapping Australian public opinion on alcohol policies in the new millennium. Drug Alcohol Rev 2009, 28:263-274.
• [21]Evans WE, Finkelstein EA, Kamerow DB, Renaud J: Public perceptions of childhood obesity. Am J Prev Med 2005, 28:26-32.
• [22]Giesbrecht NA, Ialomiteanu A, Room R, Anglin L: Trends in Public Opinion on Alcohol Policy Measures: Ontario 1989–1998. J Stud Alcohol 2001, 62:142-149.
• [23]Movsisyan N, Sahakyan K, Mkrtchyan Z, Thompson ME: Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices on Tobacco Control Policies in Adult Population in Armenia. Yerevan, Armenia: American University of Armenia Center for Health Services Research and Development; 2006.
• [24]Sarna L, Brown JK, Lillington L, Wewers ME, Brecht ML: Tobacco-control attitudes, advocacy, and smoking behaviors of oncology nurses. Oncol Nurs Forum 2000, 27:1519-1528.
• [25]Wickins-Drazilova D, Williams G: Ethical and public policy aspects of childhood obesity: opinions of scientists working on an intervention study. Obes Rev 2010, 11:620-626.
• [26]Worsley A, Murphy S: Attitudes to Food and Nutrition Policy from 5 Different Sectors in Australia. Health Promot Int 1994, 9:231-240.
• [27]Carr P, Mecredy D, Goodfellow R, Mowat D: Public opinion regarding smoking in public places and workplaces in the Greater Kingston area. Can J Public Health 1998, 89:35-36.
• [28]Joossens L: Smoking policy in the workplace and other public places. Lung 1990, 168:437-444.
• [29]Mikanowicz CK, Fitzgerald DC, Leslie M, Altman NH: Medium-sized business employees speak out about smoking. J Community Health 1999, 24:439-450.
• [30]Walsh RA, Tzelepis F, Paul CL, McKenzie J: Environmental tobacco smoke in homes, motor vehicles and licensed premises: community attitudes and practices. Aust N Z J Public Health 2002, 26:536-542.
• [31]Fitzsimmons G, Cooper-Stanbury M: 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: State and Territory Results. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2000.
• [32]Glawischnig M, Reichmann G, Sommersguter-Reichmann M: Austrian students and smoking: prevalence and characteristics. College Student J 2009, 43:514-526.
• [33]Heim D, Ross A, Eadie D, MacAskill S, Davies J, Hastings G, Haw S: Public health or social impacts? A qualitative analysis of attitudes toward the smoke-free legislation in Scotland. Nicotine Tob Res 2009, 11:1424-1430.
• [34]Jones SC, Love C, Thomson G, Green R, Howden-Chapman P: Second-hand smoke at work: the exposure, perceptions and attitudes of bar and restaurant workers to environmental tobacco smoke. Aust N Z J Public Health 2001, 25:90-93.
• [35]Shankar SM, Gutierrez-Mohamed ML, Alberg A: Cigarette smoking among immigrant Salvadoreans in Washington D. C.: behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs. Addict Behav 2000, 25:275-281.
• [36]Tzelepis F, Walsh R, Paul C: Community attitudes towards environmental tobacco smoke in licensed premises: follow‒up study after the Sharp case. Aust N Z J Public Health 2003, 27:539-542.
• [37]Walsh R, Tzelepis F: Support for smoking restrictions in bars and gaming areas: review of Australian studies. Aust N Z J Public Health 2003, 27:310-322.
• [38]Holmila M, Mustonen H, Osterberg E, Raitasalo K: Public opinion and community-based prevention of alcohol-related harms. Addict Res Theo 2009, 17:360-371.
• [39]Room R, Graves K, Giesbrecht N, Greenfield T: Trends in Public-Opinion About Alcohol Policy Initiatives in Ontario and the US 1989–91. Drug Alcohol Rev 1995, 14:35-47.
• [40]Latimer W, Harwood E, Newcomb M, Wagenaar A: Measuring public opinion on alcohol policy - a factor analytic study of a US probability sample. Addict Behav 2003, 28:301-313.
• [41]Flaherty B, Homel P, Hall W: Public attitudes towards alcohol control policies. Aust J Public Health 1991, 15:301-306.
• [42]Jones-Webb RJ, Greenfield T, Graves K: The relationship between ethnicity, social class, alcohol use, and public opinion regarding alcohol control policies. Contemp Drug Prob 1993, 20:719-738.
• [43]Hardus PM, van Vuuren CL, Crawford D, Worsley AL: Public perceptions of the causes and prevention of obesity among primary school children. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003, 27:1465-1471.
• [44]Hilbert A, Rief W, Braehler E: What determines public support of obesity prevention? J Epidemiol Community Health 2007, 61:585-590.
• [45]Jeffery RW, Forster JL, Schmid TL, McBride CM, Rooney BL, Pirie PL: Community attitudes toward public policies to control alcohol, tobacco, and high-fat food-consumption. Am J Prev Med 1990, 6:12-19.
• [46]Suggs L, McIntyre C: European Union public opinion on policy measures to address childhood overweight and obesity. J Public Health Policy 2011, 32:91-106.
• [47]Thomson G, Wilson N, Edwards R: At the frontier of tobacco control: a brief review of public attitudes toward smoke-free outdoor places. Nicotine Tob Res 2009, 11:584-590.
• [48]McAllister I: Public-attitudes to the regulation of alcohol. Drug Alcohol Rev 1995, 14:179-186.
• [49]Schumann A, John U, Thyrian R, Ulbricht S, Hapke U, Meyer C: Attitudes towards smoking policies and tobacco control measures in relation to smoking status and smoking behaviour. Eur J Public Health 2006, 16:513-519.
• [50]Marques-Vidal P, Melich-Cerveira J, Paccaud F, Waeber G, Vollenweider P, Cornuz J: Opinions on tobacco control policies in Lausanne, Switzerland, 2003–2006. Prev Med 2010, 51:193-194.
• [51]Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, Brennan LK, Bacak SJ: Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health 2001, 91:1995-2003.
• [52]Della Torre Swiss S, Akré C, Suris J: Obesity prevention opinions of school stakeholders: a qualitative study. J Sch Health 2010, 80:233-239.
• [53]Kubik M, Lytle L, Story M: Soft drinks, candy, and fast food: what parents and teachers think about the middle school food environment. J Am Diet Assoc 2005, 105:233-239.
• [54]Vereecken C, van Houte H, Martens V, Wittebroodt I, Maes L: Parents’ and teachers’ opinions about the school food policy in Belgian Flemish Nursery Schools. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2009, 6:1268-1281.
• [55]Oliver J, Lee L: Public opinion and the politics of obesity in America. J Health Polit Policy Law 2005, 30:923-954.
• [56]Brenner H, Born J, Novak P, Wanek V: Smoking behavior and attitude toward smoking regulations and passive smoking in the workplace - a study among 974 employees in the German metal industry. Prev Med 1997, 26:138-143.
• [57]Cramer M, Roberts S, Stevens E: Landlord attitudes and behaviors regarding smoke-free policies: implications for voluntary policy change. Public Health Nurs 2011, 28:3-12.
• [58]Heloma A, Jaakkola M: Four-year follow-up of smoke exposure, attitudes and smoking behaviour following enactment of Finland’s national smoke-free work-place law. Addiction 2003, 98:1111-1117.
• [59]McNeill A, Lewis S, Quinn C, Mulcahy M, Clancy L, Hastings G, Edwards R: Evaluation of the removal of point-of-sale tobacco displays in Ireland. Tob Control 2011, 20:137-143.
• [60]Pursell L, Allwright S, O’Donovan D, Paul G, Kelly A, Mullally B, D’Eath M: Before and after study of bar workers’ perceptions of the impact of smoke-free workplace legislation in the Republic of Ireland. BMC Public Health 2007, 7(131):1-10.
• [61]Siahpush M, Scollo M: Public support for smoking bans in public places in Australia: trends and socio-demographic variations. Health Promot J Austr 2002, 13:237-241.
• [62]Borland R, Owen N, Hill D, Chapman S: Changes in acceptance of workplace smoking bans following their implementation: a prospective study. Prev Med 1990, 19:314-322.
• [63]Cooper J, Borland R, Yong H, Hyland A: Compliance and support for bans on smoking in licensed venues in Australia: findings from the International Tobacco Control Four Country Survey. Aust N Z J Public Health 2010, 34:379-385.
• [64]Jones M, Jones D, Powell C: Towards reality and away from blind acceptance: changes in the attitude of public house bar staff to their exposure to second hand tobacco smoke in the work-place since the announcement of legislative measures. Health Educ J 2007, 66:323-334.
• [65]Miller C, Wakefield M, Kriven S, Hyland A: The air we breathe: evaluation of smoke‒free dining in South Australia: support and compliance among the community and restaurateurs. Aust N Z J Public Health 2002, 26:38-44.
• [66]Anglin L, Giesbrecht N, Ialomiteanu A, McAllister J, Ogborne A: Public perception of alcohol policy issues relating directly or indirectly to privatization: results from a 1999 Ontario survey. Can J Public Health 2003, 94:201-206.
• [67]Applegate BK, Cullen FT, Barton SM: Public support for drunk-driving countermeasures: social policy for saving lives. Crime & Delinquency 1997, 4:171-190.
• [68]Bongers I, van de Goor G, Garretsen H: Social climate on alcohol in Rotterdam, the Netherlands: public opinion on drinking behaviour and alcohol control measures. Alcohol Alcohol 1998, 33:141-150.
• [69]Giesbrecht N, Ialomiteanu A, Anglin L, Adlaf E: Alcohol marketing and retailing: public opinion and recent policy developments in Canada. J Substance Use 2007, 12:389-404.
• [70]Hemstrom O: Attitudes toward alcohol policy in six EU countries. Contemp Drug Prob 2002, 29:605-618.
• [71]Kaskutas LA: Differential perceptions of alcohol policy effectiveness. J Public Health Policy 1993, 14:413-437.
• [72]Kaskutas LA: Changes in public-attitudes toward alcohol control policies since the warning label mandate of 1988. J Public Policy Marketing 1993, 12:30-37.
• [73]Loukas A, Garcia MR, Gottlieb NH: Texas college students’ opinions of no-smoking policies, secondhand smoke, and smoking in public places. J Am Coll Health 2006, 55:27-32.
• [74]Paglia A, Room R: Expectancies about the effects of alcohol on the self and on others as determinants of alcohol policy attitudes. J Appl Soc Psychol 1999, 29:2632-2651.
• [75]Reis J, Chamberlain EA: Alcohol policies and free to be foolish: an analysis of college students. J Drug Educ 1994, 24:369-383.
• [76]Schmid TL, Jeffery R, Forster JL: Public support for policy initiatives regulating alcohol use in Minnesota: a multi-community survey. J Stud Alcohol 1990, 5:438-442.
• [77]Seo DC, Torabi MR: Indiana residents’ perceptions of driving and lower blood alcohol concentration. American J Health Educ 2005, 36:26-34.
• [78]Snow P, Wallace S, Staiger P, Stolz-Grobusch B: “As long as it doesn’t spill over into class”: harms arising from students’ alcohol use, and the role of policy in reducing them. Int J Drug Policy 2003, 14:5-16.
• [79]Becker DM, Young DR, Yanek LR, Voorhees CC, Levine DM, Janey N: Smoking restriction policy attitudes in a diverse African American population. Am J Health Behav 1998, 22:451-459.
• [80]Berg CJ, Lessard L, Parelkar PP, Thrasher J, Kegler MC, Escoffery C, Goldade K, Ahluwalia JS: College student reactions to smoking bans in public, on campus and at home. Health Educ Res 2011, 26:106-118.
• [81]Danishevski K, Gilmore A, McKee M: Public attitudes towards smoking and tobacco control policy in Russia. Tob Control 2008, 17:276-283.
• [82]Doucet JM, Velicer WF, Laforge R: Demographic differences in support for smoking policy interventions. Addict Behav 2007, 32:148-157.
• [83]Howard KA, Rogers T, Howard-Pitney B, Flora JA, Norman GJ, Ribisl K: Opinion leaders’ support for tobacco control policies and participation in tobacco control activities. Am J Public Health 2000, 90:1283-1287.
• [84]Males M: Use of a school referendum to deter teen-age tobacco use. J Sch Health 1992, 62:229-232.
• [85]McAllister I: Public opinion in Australia on restricting smoking in public places. Tob Control 1995, 4:30-35.
• [86]Miller C, Kriven S: Community support for smoking bans in bar and gaming venues in South Australia. In Tobacco Control Research and Evaluation Report Volume 1: 1998–2001. Adelaide: Tobacco Control Research Evaluation Unit; 2002:209-219.
• [87]Osypuk TL, Acevedo-Garcia D: Support for smoke-free policies: a nationwide analysis of immigrants, US-born, and other demographic groups, 1995–2002. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:171-181.
• [88]Polacek GNLJ, Atkins JL: Smoking behavior, attitudes of second-hand smoke, and no-smoking policies on a university campus. Health Educator 2008, 40:37-45.
• [89]Ramirez AG, Velez LF, Chalela P, Grussendorf J, McAlister AL: Tobacco control policy advocacy attitudes and self-efficacy among ethnically diverse high school students. Health Educ Behav 2006, 33:502-514.
• [90]Reitan TC: Democracy in a bottle: attitudes towards alcohol regulation in the post-communist Baltic Sea region. J Baltic Studies 2004, 34:131-158.
• [91]Rigotti NA, Regan S, Moran SE, Wechsler H: Students’ opinion of tobacco control policies recommended for US colleges: a national survey. Tob Control 2003, 12:251-256.
• [92]Sundh M, Hagquist C: Effects of a minimum-age tobacco law-swedish experience. Drugs: Edu, Prev Pol 2005, 12:501-510.
• [93]Stanton WR, Saeck L, Purdie J, Balanda KP, Lowe JB: Public support in Australia for restrictions on cigarette smoking. Health Promot J Austr 2002, 13:32-38.
• [94]Torabi MR, McAllister L: Public opinion on tobacco use, its taxes and public-policy. Res Q Exerc Sport 1992, 87:134-138.
• [95]Unger JB, Rohrbach LA, Howard KA, Cruz TB, Johnson CA, Chen XG: Attitudes toward anti-tobacco policy among California youth: associations with smoking status, psychosocial variables and advocacy actions. Health Educ Res 1999, 14:751-763.
• [96]Wyman J, Price JH, Jordan TR: Parents’ perceptions of the role of schools in tobacco use prevention and cessation for youth. J Community Health 2006, 31:225-248.
• [97]Young D, Borland R, Siahpush M, Hastings G, Fong GT, Cummings KM: Australian smokers support stronger regulatory controls on tobacco: findings from the ITC Four-Country Survey. Aust N Z J Public Health 2007, 31:164-169.
• [98]Rosenberg M, Pettigrew S, Wood L, Ferguson R, Houghton S: Public support for tobacco control policy extensions in Western Australia: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2012, 2:e000784.
• [99]Shopland DR, Hartman AM, Repace JL, Lynn WR: Smoking behavior, workplace policies, and public opinion regarding smoking restrictions in Maryland. Md Med J 1995, 44:99-104.
• [100]Lazuras L, Rodafinos A, Panagiotakos DB, Thyrian JR, John U, Polychronopoulos E: Support for smoke-free policies in a pro-smoking culture: findings from the European survey on tobacco control attitudes and knowledge. Int J Public Health 2009, 54:403-408.
• [101]Rodolfo M, Nayga R: Toward an understanding of consumers’ perceptions of food labels. Int Food Agribusiness Manag Rev 1999, 2:29-45.
• [102]Worsley A: Lay people’s views of school food policy options: associations with confidence, personal values and demographics. Health Educ Res 2006, 21:848-861.
• [103]Barry CL, Brescoll VL, Brownell KD: Knowledge synthesis of smoking cessation among employed and unemployed young adults. Am J Public Health 2009, 97:1434-1443.
• [104]Martinez-Sanchez JM, Fernandez E, Fu M, Gallus S, Martinez C, Sureda X, La Vecchia C, Clancy L: Smoking behaviour, involuntary smoking, attitudes towards smoke-free legislations, and tobacco control activities in the European Union. PLoS One 2010, 5:e13881.
• [105]Ahmed S, Aujayeb A, Cowens E, Evans A, Gent F, Adams J, Heywood P, White M: Would the public support a ban on smoking in public places? - a survey of local opinion in the North East of England. McGill Journal of Medicine 2004, 8:15-20.
• [106]Borland R, Hill D: Public attitudes to smoke-free zones in restaurants: an update. Med J Australia 1991, 154:292-293.
• [107]Hennrikus D, Pentel PR: Preferences and practices among renters regarding smoking restrictions in apartment buildings. Tob Control 2003, 12:189-194.
• [108]Hocking B, Borland R, Owen N, Kemp G: A total ban on workplace smoking is acceptable and effective. J Occup Med 1991, 33:163-167.
• [109]Schofield MJ, Edwards K: Community attitudes to bans on smoking in licensed premises. Aust J Public Health 1995, 19:399-402.
• [110]Semmonds A, Bailey K, Bently S, Chase V, Fernando S, Guruge A, King M, Tan OM, Walsh R: Smoking in hotels: prevalence and opinions about restrictions. Aust J Public Health 1995, 19:98-100.
• [111]Walsh RA, Paul CL, Tzelepis F, Stojanovski E, Tang A: Is government action out-of-step with public opinion on tobacco control? Results of a New South Wales population survey. Aust N Z J Public Health 2008, 32:482-488.
• [112]Andrews J, Netemeyer R, Durvasula S: Effects of consumption frequency on believability and attitudes toward alcohol warning labels. J Consumer Affairs 1991, 25:323-338.
• [113]Crowe J, Bailey W: Self-interest and attitudes about legislation controlling alcohol. Psychol Rep 1995, 76:995-1003.
• [114]Ungerleider S, Bloch SA: Perceived effectiveness of drinking-driving countermeasures: an evaluation of MADD. J Stud Alcohol 1988, 49:191-195.
• [115]Green DP, Gerken AE: Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking restrictions and cigarette taxes. Public Opin Q 1989, 53:1-16.
• [116]Van Hoof J, Gosselt J, de Jong M: Determinants of parental support for governmental alcohol control policies. Health Policy 2010, 97:195-201.
• [117]Blake KD, Viswanath K, Blendon R, Vallone D: The role of tobacco-specific media exposure, knowledge, and smoking status on selected attitudes toward tobacco control. Nicotine Tob Res 2010, 12:117-126.
• [118]Pederson LL, Bull SB, Ashley MJ, Lefcoe NM: A population survey on legislative measures to restrict smoking in Ontario. Variables related to attitudes of smokers and nonsmokers. Am J Prev Med 1989, 5:313-322.
• [119]World Health Organisation: Global Progress Report on implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; 2012. [http://www.who.int/fctc/reporting/2012_global_progress_report_en.pdf webcite]
• [120]Festinger L: A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957.
• [121]Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH: Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and Status Quo Bias. J Econ Perspect 1991, 5:193-206.
• [122]Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW: A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 2000, 30:407-429.
• [123]Promberger M, Dolan P, Marteau TM: “Pay them if it works”: citizen acceptability of financial incentives depends on how effective they are. Soc Sci Medin press
• [124]Goren A, Harris JL, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD: Predicting support for restricting food marketing to youth. Health Aff 2010, 29:419-424.
• [125]Suhrcke M, Nugent R, Stuckler D, Rocco L: Chronic disease: an economic perspective. London: Oxford Health Alliance; 2006. [http://www.sehn.org/tccpdf/Chronic%20disease%20economic%20perspective.pdf webcite]
• [126]Smith C (Ed): Population Trends, edition 141. UK: Office for National Statistics; 2010.
• [127]Blekesaune M, Quadagno J: Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: a comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociol Rev 2003, 19:415-427.
• [128]Greenberg J: Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. J Appl Psychol 1994, 79:288-297.
• [129]Ahlstrom S, Osterberg E: Changes in climate of opinion concerning alcohol policy in Finland in the 1980s. Contemp Drug Prob 1992, 19:431-457.
• [130]World Health Organization: Evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2009. [http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/43319/E92823.pdf webcite]
• [131]Keren G (Ed): Perspectives on Framing. New York: Psychology Press; 2011.
• [132]Haidt J: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. London, UK: Allen Lane; 2002.
• [133]ASH (Action on Smoking and Health): The smoke filled room: How big tobacco influences health policy in the UK. London: ASH; 2010. [http://www.ash.org.uk/SmokeFilledRoom webcite]